Talk:The Fall of Gondolin

Trashy aggregation in presence of actual reviews

edit

An editor has now seen fit, twice, to try to force a trashy aggregation text that says nothing beyond a Facebook-worthy "like", when the article already has multiple, reliably-cited, independent reviews that actually state chapter and verse of what different sources think of the book. They are far better than any amount of "A++" or whatever guff the meta-sites now choose to fluff up their material with. There is no need whatsoever for such rubbish in any article that contains proper reviews; at best, it's a dreadful cheap stop-gap for articles where decent reviews haven't yet been published. It may make sense to use such a tertiary site for pop material like television episodes, but for literary books which have been formally reviewed both by scholars and in newspapers it makes no sense at all. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:59, 24 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Christopher died less than 2 years after its publication,

edit

Is there any information on whether he did all the work? SFandLogicReader (talk) 15:36, 4 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

It certainly seems so; there is no indication of anything else. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:04, 4 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
Good to know! He finished doing all the Legendarium just in time then, it seems. What an entire life dedication! --SFandLogicReader (talk) 18:09, 5 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
There have been additional contributions since, but yes, he pretty much completed what he set out to do. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:10, 5 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
Oh, I wasn't aware. What was published afterwards? --SFandLogicReader (talk) 18:11, 5 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
The Nature of Middle-earth, for instance. But we're violating WP:NOTFORUM. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:26, 5 September 2024 (UTC)Reply