Talk:Einherjar/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Overview of 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 (no original research):

3. It is broad in its coverage

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   a (fair representation): b (all significant views):

5. It is stable.
6. It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic.

   a (copyright tagged and captioned): b (appropriate use; lack of images does not in itself exclude GA):

7. Overall:

   a Pass/Fail:

Overview

Thank you for nominating the article for GA. It has good prose and referencing, plus it's an easy read! I've placed some comments below for you to look at. Once you've gone through these, making any necessary changes, we can move forward.

I'll place the review on hold for 5 days, for you to go through them. –Whitehorse1 22:29, 2 February 2009 (UTC).

I'm glad you like the article. Thanks for taking the for the in-depth review! :bloodofox: (talk) 22:25, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Lead

• "In Valhalla, the einherjar eat their fill of the nightly-resurrecting beast Sæhrímnir (cooked by Andhrímnir), and are brought their fill of mead..."

I'm not sure if the parenthetical is needed.

Changed per suggestion. :bloodofox: (talk) 22:13, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Great, marking done. I made a further change removing the parenthesis entirely. While probably an important fact, the lead needs to be choosy – shaped to provide only the most important points from the article. The detail is still present in the main article body for readers. As with all of my changes, please feel free to revert if you wish! –Whitehorse1 16:38, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

1.2 Prose Edda

• Gylfaginning, apparently translates (anglicizes?) to the Deceiving of Gylfi (or tricking). Worth mentioning?

I wouldn't. Gylfaginning is very commonly referenced as it's an important primary source from the Prose Edda. I don't think the title of it is anymore important for our purposes here than any of the other titles on the article. Gylfaginning is sometimes translated as "the tricking of Gylfi," "the Deluding of Gylfi," and so forth. The book itself is basically quite a lot of lore collected by Snorri and arranged in a question and answer format between High, Just-As-High and Third (all names of Odin) and the semi-mythological king Gylfi. :bloodofox: (talk) 21:35, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Sounds sensible. Marking this one off. –Whitehorse1 16:38, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

• "In the Prose Edda book Gylfaginning, the einherjar are introduced in chapter 20. In chapter 20, Third tells Gangleri..."

Should this be "Thridi"? The High, Just-As-High, and Third article does reflect the spelling in this article, while other sources use the alternative spelling.

"Third" is used here instead of Þriði, just as Hár is not used for "High". –Holt T•C 18:56, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, here is a case where our policies on Old Norse names dictate that "Third" is used rather than Þriði. The reason for this is because it's basically always translated into English due to the straight forward nature of the word. :bloodofox: (talk) 19:28, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

• In chapter 51, High foretells the events of Ragnarök. ... they will assemble at a thing.

Should the name thing (assembly) be italicized (it is wikilinked)?

"Thing" is an English word, so it's not italicized. –Holt T•C 18:59, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

1.3 Heimskringla

• "Dialogue occurs between Göndul and Skögul where Haakon asks the valkyries why they did not grant him victory:"

Is this correct? There're the two valkyries Göndul and Skögul, and the fallen warrior Haakon. The quote following the colon is a dialogue between 'Hákon' and 'Skogul'. Should the above line instead be "Dialogue occurs between Skögul and Haakon where he asks the valkyries why they did not grant him victory:"? The quoted verse uses a variation on spelling of Haakon, please check this is as intended.

I've made some adjustments and additions that I believe have fixed this. I've confirmed that Hollander has "Hákon." By the way, if you weren't aware, the reason for this is our current naming convention agreement here on Wikipedia: Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Norse mythology). :bloodofox: (talk) 07:15, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

I wasn't aware of that, no. Thanks for the link, I had a look. Armed with a better grasp of the naming conventions this looks fine. Likewise, my queries above about the names Third and Thing are resolved. The changes you made to this part look good as well. –Whitehorse1 16:38, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

2 Theories

• "According to John Lindow, Andy Orchard, and Rudolf Simek"

I think ordinary practice is to refer to authorities by surname only?

When I "introduce" a figure I give their full name, then in any references to them thereafter I just use their surname (unless, of course, there are two people being referred to with the same surname..). I find this to be most concise and avoids confusion. :bloodofox: (talk) 21:08, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, this is definitely good practice. Using surnames indicates familiarity (like you'd only say Shakespeare, certain of his fame), which most people don't have with these scholars. I get outright confused when authorities are introduced only with their surname and no presentation. –Holt T•C 12:10, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm all for clarity. Duly ticked off the list. –Whitehorse1 16:38, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

• "and that the name Harii has been etymologically connected to the -herjar element of einherjar."

This seemed superfluous as you haven't given the etymology of einherjar. You do so kind of, in the following paragraph. Maybe rearranging the order could make it clearer.

• Maybe retitle section to Theories on origins and etymology, or origins and etymology – or something; or I suppose two subsections, though they'd be very short sections.

Done by Bloodofox. –Holt T•C 12:10, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

• "Simek says that since the connection has become widespread, "one tends to interpret..."

This is a long run on sentence. It'd benefit from splitting up into more than one sentence.

Fixed. I split it into two sentences. :bloodofox: (talk) 04:07, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, Bloodofox. –Whitehorse1 16:38, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Notes and References

• The title Heimskringla. History of the kings of Norway under references exists but the ISBN number doesn't seem tied to any edition in 2007. Contemporary editions seem to've been issued 2000, 2003, 2008 for example. Please doublecheck year.

I checked my edition, and it reads that it is the sixth paperback printing and it is dated to 2007. The IBSN is also correct as printed. :bloodofox: (talk) 22:23, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

As long as the details are correct as printed that's good enough for any of us. Thanks for double-checking that. –Whitehorse1 16:38, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Final comments

I am doing my final read-through now. The article is in good shape and will pass GA. –Whitehorse1 16:38, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

I have completed my review of this article. In my opinion the article now meets all GA citeria. The prose is of good standard, the article is broad yet focused in its coverage, and well-referenced. There are no problems with neutrality or stability. Thank you for being helpful and responsive throughout. Congratulations on a worthy Good Article. –Whitehorse1 17:23, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the very in depth review of the article. I appreciate the time you've taken and all of the helpful comments and issues you've raised over the course of your review. You've really taken the time and put forth the effort for an outstanding and insightful review here (and on the valkyrie article). You have made some good points here that I'll bring into future articles. I would also like to thank Holt for all of their help on the article! :bloodofox: (talk) 17:54, 5 February 2009 (UTC)