Beowulf: The Monsters and the Critics 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: February 3, 2015. ( Reviewed version).

This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Poetry Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Poetry, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of poetry 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.PoetryWikipedia:WikiProject PoetryTemplate:WikiProject PoetryPoetry articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Books This article is within the scope of WikiProject Books. To participate in the project, please visit its page, where you can join the project and discuss matters related to book articles. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the relevant guideline for the type of work.BooksWikipedia:WikiProject BooksTemplate:WikiProject BooksBook articles

This quote is not enormous, but not all of it is needed. If we can cut an essay down to a quote, we can cut a quote down to only what's strictly needed. I see you already agree with me to cut the part where Acocella quotes the title. We agree because that bit of the quote is redundant with the rest of the WP article. Since we dispute the rest, let's look at the distinct parts of the quote:

1. "a paper that many people regard as not just the finest essay on the poem but one of the finest essays on English literature."
2. "Tolkien preferred the monsters to the critics."
3. "In his view, the meaning of the poem had been ignored in favor of archeological and philological study."

We agree that the first line is necessary. Acocella is cited to show the general consensus of many. Not Acocella's own opinion, but an objective report. Good. The next sentence, "Tolkien preferred…," simply restates the first sentence of the overview: Tolkien had objections to critics. Tolkien talks about how the monsters are critical. His title holds them in contrast to each other, implying that one is higher in his regard. I don't see how this isn't plainly repeating information from earlier in the article. The third sentence, "In his view…" again says the same thing as the "Overview" part of the article. "In his view" isn't needed. "the meaning . . . had been ignored" isn't needed. "in favor of…" isn't needed. All of these parts come up in the Overview. And that's the overview. We don't need this citation--this quote--at the end just to establish that one person actually said things that are plain facts. You say "no, really, this is her opinion"--so which is the opinion? Is "Tolkien preferred" her opinion? Is "his view" her opinion? She notes both things to be objective fact, with no markers that these parts are subjective or original.

Furthermore, if you want to invite me to the talk page, Chiswick Chap, don't just revert my careful, intentional, clearly-described edit and then tell me to go to the Talk page. Come on.-- Akhenaten0 ( talk) 15:50, 24 November 2014 (UTC) reply

I see what you mean. However, the problem is that the "Overview" contains uncited material - it is not supported by references and could just be some earlier editor's opinion; we can't rely upon it and should not treat anything which is cited as redundant to it. Instead, the overview needs to reflect the cited materials further down the article, most likely by being completely rewritten and using the same citations of the body of the article. "Plain facts" are what we need to establish using evidence either from Tolkien himself (primary sources, acceptable in a summary of a book), or other people such as Acocella (secondary sources). I hope that makes my position seem a little clearer and more logical. Of your 3 parts of the quote, I'd say that all 3 are in fact useful, though I'm happy to agree we needn't quote them to rely on them. In the interests of harmony, I'll use #3 indirectly (just by placing additional refs, I'll do that now since it's uncontroversial), but I think we should certainly leave #2 in place. Chiswick Chap ( talk) 16:09, 24 November 2014 (UTC) reply

Fair compromise. And kudos to you for the work you've been doing on the page.-- Akhenaten0 ( talk) 16:14, 24 November 2014 (UTC) reply

Oh good. Since I suspect you know about uses assorted scholars have made of Tolkien's paper, you might like to add some details and refs? Chiswick Chap ( talk) 16:17, 24 November 2014 (UTC) reply

I'll put it on my to-do list! -- Akhenaten0 ( talk) 21:18, 4 December 2014 (UTC) reply