Talk:Literary reception of The Lord of the Rings

Literary reception of The Lord of the Rings has been listed as one of the Language and literature good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Review: January 28, 2022. (Reviewed version).

This article is written in British English with Oxford spelling (colour, realize, organization, analyse; note that -ize is used instead of -ise) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

Middle-earth High‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Middle-earth, which aims to build an encyclopedic guide to J. R. R. Tolkien, his legendarium, and related topics. Please visit the project talk page for suggestions and ideas on how you can improve this and other articles.Middle-earthWikipedia:WikiProject Middle-earthTemplate:WikiProject Middle-earthTolkien articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
Note: Though it states in the Guide to writing better articles that generally fictional articles should be written in present tense, all Tolkien legendarium-related articles that cover in-universe material before the current action must be written in past tense. Please see Wikipedia:WikiProject Middle-earth/Standards for more information about this and other article standards.

Philosophy: Aesthetics / Social and political / Continental Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.PhilosophyWikipedia:WikiProject PhilosophyTemplate:WikiProject PhilosophyPhilosophy articles

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Associated task forces:
/
	Aesthetics
	Social and political philosophy
	Continental philosophy

Popular Culture (inactive)

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Popular Culture, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.Popular CultureWikipedia:WikiProject Popular CultureTemplate:WikiProject Popular CulturePopular Culture articles

Science Fiction Low‑importance

	Speculative fiction portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Science Fiction, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science fiction on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Science FictionWikipedia:WikiProject Science FictionTemplate:WikiProject Science Fictionscience fiction articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Work needed[edit]

The reception areas need to be redone. The reviews written there are pathetically biased and negative to one of the greatest writers of all time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JoshuaTedder (talk • contribs) 20:29, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

LOL. They are just jealous that they never wrote anything as wonderful as these books are. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.51.145.103 (talk) 07:41, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The New York Times review by Judith Shulevitz shouldn't be discussed as an original review; it's from 2001. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.102.99.20 (talk) 20:16, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Edmund Wilson.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 09:44, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]