Talk:Ýdalir

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Ýdalir/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

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

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:

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: No problems with the article. Though short, it covers the material well, and I presume there is nothing more to be said. Congratulations with another good article Arsenikk ^(talk) 10:55, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Hello again Arsenikk! Thanks for checking the article over! It seems you have forgotten to sign your name here though. :) :bloodofox: (talk) 00:31, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

GA Reassessment

Ýdalir

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review

Result: Kept. Real4jyy (talk) 11:11, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

At 251 words, counting the 44-word lead, this 2009 promotion is far too short to meet the modern standard for broadness. There is little to mine from the sourcing - each source discusses it in no more than a sentence or two.

(Honestly, given the limited information available about it, I am hardly sure it even needs its own article at all - it could very easily be merged into Ullr.) ♠PMC♠ (talk) 21:49, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

This is a clean, concise, and well-sourced article on a location mentioned in Norse mythology. It can easily be expanded but meets all WP:GA requirements. Merging it into an article is just going to lead to confusion for the reader and reduce the likelihood of further expansion. :bloodofox: (talk) 01:41, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

Is there any chance of expansion? I was not able to locate any sources that discussed the topic in any further detail. I have no problem admitting there are sources I may not have found. By any standard, trivial mentions (and I would argue that each of the sources cited is a trivial mention) do not support a claim to notability, regardless of the topic. Norse mythology has no more of a carve-out from GACR or GNG than anything else. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 04:19, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

From your response, it appears that you are new to this topic. These topics have been written about for hundreds of years now. Anything from a small novel to dozen volume set could be written about the reception and this-or-that analysis of pertty much every single place, person, or thing in Norse mythology. Just from a brief search, one could add a bunch of stuff from, for example, Rydberg or any number of individuals in English or otherwise (try German or Swedish). No doubt Wikipedia has plenty of real problems: there's no need to invent one here. :bloodofox: (talk) 06:20, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

Since you're the expert here, care to expand the article or identify specific sources? Trainsandotherthings (talk) 17:37, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

• Comment. At risk of stinking up the scholarly sources with an "In popular culture" section, I have added this diff. Feel free to revert if desired, but given that Orchard has all of one sentence on Ýdalir, Simek/Hall has two sentences, and Bevan-Jones has two sentences or so describing a wild guess on the derivation of Udale... I think this might genuinely be one of the most notable aspects of Ýdalir. (Yeah, we don't list every single time Gungir is called out, but when there's so little else to "compete", I think it's fair. Note that Nintendo World Report is listed as reliable at WP:VG/RS as well.) SnowFire (talk) 06:44, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

  With this expansion, and given that no sources have been found to make it more broad, I think it now meets the broadness criterion, and can be kept listed. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 19:52, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

  Keep I would have passed this for Good article status if I were the reviewer and the article looked like what it is today. Cos ^{(X + Z)} 20:27, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

• Keep; still painfully short (IMO) but if there's nothing else there's nothing else. Queen of Hearts ^talk 09:07, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.