Talk:Æsir–Vanir War/GA1

GA Review

Review is imminent; article does not quick-fail. Arsenikk ^(talk) 10:49, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

   The lead does not summarize all aspects of the article; add another paragraph that relates to the meta—sources and theories. As a minimum mention Edda and Heimskringla and that theories exist (all sections should be mentioned in the lead). Otherwise I have done some minor copyediting; it is generally well written prose. The only sentence that does not read good is the one exchange of gods; I tried to fix it up but I don not really feel I did a good job at it. I am also a bit concerned with that you are talking about what Lindow feels and thinks. Though he is a scholar, these are words to avoid in an encyclopedia.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   It is in my opinion better to use good old books for references than questionable Internet resources; I applaud your choice of references, but I cannot verify them. Requirements for references are not high for GA, but I am a little concerned that the entire theory section has only one reference; you are putting it all in the hands of Lindow. Is it possible to find other references for at least some of these theories (for instance scholar journal articles) or other works on Norse mythology?

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

   I do not feel that reciting the theories by only one scholar concludes to a fair point of view; I mention this under criterion 2b—all single researchers are biased, but two comprehensive authors should balance each other out nicely.

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   I am putting it on hold; fix the lead and find at least another (two more to satisfy mrg3105) reference for the controversial theories and do some rephrasing and it will be passed. Overall a nice and comprehensive article. Arsenikk ^(talk) 12:07, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Hello and thanks for taking the time to review this article. One thing I should probably clarify is that the reason Lindow is referenced so much in the "Theories" section is because his encyclopedia entry provides a basic overview of theories regarding the subject. The two main theories on this particular subject are easily the invasion theory and the Freyja/Gullveig connection and can be expanded accordingly. I agree that the theories section needs more citations (and expansion) but I should note that these are not just Lindow's theories; he doesn't state he agrees or disagrees either way outside of where I've noted he's expressed his opinions. You can, by the way, confirm all of these references through books.google.com. :bloodofox: (talk) 05:40, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

In the light of fixing the references and the lead, and a personal review of the literature, I promote this article to GA status. Congratulations, you have done a good work on this one, Bloodofax. I do not have many comments about further work on the article, unless more can be said on the theories, but you seem to have exhausted the references concerning the topic. Arsenikk ^(talk) 23:20, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you very much, it was a pleasure. :} :bloodofox: (talk) 03:37, 13 June 2008 (UTC)