Wikipedia:Peer review/Södermanland Runic Inscription 113/archive1

Södermanland Runic Inscription 113

So, I realise the subject is a relatively small one, but that has its own advantages, in its way. I think this article is comprehensive for its subject, and want to know whether it might be suitable for featured article status. If there's any improvements that can be done, let me know.

Thanks, Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 8.1% of all FPs} 03:43, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

STANDARD NOTE: I have added this PR to the Template:FAC peer review sidebar to get quicker and more responses. When this PR is closed, please remove it from the list. Also, consider adding the sidebar to your userpage to help others discover pre-FAC PRs, and please review other articles in that template. Thanks! Z1720 (talk) 01:19, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

Adam Cuerden there has not been recent activity at this PR, do you want it to stay open? (t · c) buidhe 10:40, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

Comments by Z1720

After a quick skim, my opinion is that, in its current state, it would be difficult to pass a FAC. There are a couple sections that I think are missing, including a History section (theories on who made/wrote this, why it was made, what has happened to this since its creation, how was it rediscovered), its study and translation (who translated it and when?), and what is its influence (what have academics learned from studying this? How have academics, politicians, and others reacted to this?) Some of this is already mentioned in the article, but hopefully more sources and information can be found on this topic to allow this information to be expanded.

Gevninge helmet fragment might give some guidance on what sections to include in the article. I hope these comments help. Z1720 (talk) 03:52, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

Comment from Airship

• Something to think about: if this gained Featured Article status, it would be the smallest of any FA, around 66% the size of the next smallest article. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:33, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

Comment by Borsoka

Indeed, it is a really short article. I hope it will end as an FA.

Some suggestions:

• Please rephrase the two long plain lists of geographic terms ("in Kolunda, Stenkvista Parish [sv], Eskilstuna Municipality, Sweden, within the historic province of Södermanland", and "in Kolunda, Stenkvista Parish [sv], Eskilstuna *Municipality, Sweden, in the historic province of Södermanland").
• Perhaps you could explain why it is supposed that the hill originally had many other graves, and you may also inform our readers who used the graves (peasants, warriors, artisans...).
• Does have any feature of S 113 that distinguishes it from other rune stones of the region or of the period?

Borsoka (talk) 04:36, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Comment by Jengod

"Its absence of ornament and the inscription's straight, vertical rune band (line of runes) suggest that it may be the area's oldest runestone.[5]"

I would like more context for this. Are there categories of runestone styles that indicate age? Does this region have more recent or very ancient runestones compared to other regions that have runestones?

Are some/none/all runestones gravemarkers? Are surviving runestones extremely rare or quite common?

I gather from the Younger Futhark article that these runes are more or less the written form of Old Norse. Maybe include some of that background in the article for total innocents who encounter this content for the first time?

Similarly, maybe explain the location is "southeast Sweden” so-and-so kilometers from the coast of the Gulf of Bothnia, and maybe give the reader a tiny smidge of context about the society of the area at the time? Most farmers? Sailors? Rich? poor? Completely unknown to us? The center of intellectual life in early-medieval Scandinavia?

Cheers. jengod (talk) 04:48, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

Caeciliusinhorto

I agree with everyone else that this is a very short article, and if it were nominated at FA in this state you would really need to be convincing that it actually is comprehensive. Some lingering questions I have about the runestone:

• Do we know who discovered it? I'm presuming the landowner or a farm worker?
• Who first published the stone?
• Is there any standard catalogue of runic texts that it has been published in (e.g. an Old Norse equivalent of the Corpus Inscriptionum Latinarum)?
• Is the stone now in private ownership or a museum or university collection? Can a more comprehensive account of provenance be written than "once owned by Otto van Friesen"?
• Is a dedicatory inscription like this typical of runestones?
• Are Thorketill and Folka otherwise attested in the historical record? (I presume not)
• Is there anything geological to be said about the stone? Is it a local rock or one that was imported to the area?
• Has any archaeology been done on the related burial mound? Was anything else found there?

It may be the case that the answer to all of these is "no reliable source has discussed it, and I can't even find a reliable source to support the claim that nobody has discussed it", but in its current state criterion 1b ("comprehensive: it neglects no major facts or details") looks to be the biggest hurdle for FA status, so I think it worth asking explicitly. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 16:15, 5 January 2023 (UTC)