Talk:Naglfar/GA1

GA Review

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

GA review (see here for criteria)

Decent article that might need a little work. Putting review on hold for up to 7 days so editors can address some possible issues.

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): Regarding 2b, that won't fail the article. I am just unable to verify any sources myself, but everything seems to be cited by sources that appear to be reliable.
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.: Regarding 5, a couple recent reverts, but it seems to me that the community has settled on etymology.
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):
Overall:
Pass/Fail:

Reviewer: Aaron north (talk) 22:47, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

The following is a list of concerns that I believe need to be satisfied to pass review. If you disagree or believe I made an error, please point that out too. Aaron north (talk) 01:45, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The lead might need to be touched a bit. I don't believe that etymology necessarily has to be mentioned in the lead, but I see nothing regarding the archaeological record. You may want to either expand that section and include a brief mention in the lead, or just use those few sentences as a relevant detail in another section. Lead is fine for now, though it may need to be touched again if significant updates are made in the article.
~~Is there a reason to say Fiest "strongly" rejects? If not, then it looks like puffery, and might raise some mild NPOV concerns.~~
Related to the first point, I dont necessarily think a section should be long just for the sake of being long, because that usually just leads to trivia. However, these two sentences seem short for "archaeological record". If there is more information available related to that subject, it should be expanded at least a little bit, otherwise this brief information on the Tullstorp Runestone could just be incorporated elsewhere in the article in some way that is relevant. As it is, those two sentences read like something picked out of the middle of a paragraph.

The following is a list of other thoughts or suggestions to improve the article. It is not necessary to satisfy these points to meet the GA criteria. Aaron north (talk) 01:45, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm wondering if the Etymology shouldn't come after Attestations? Obviously it is important to determine the origin of the word and the legend, but I'd think that should come after a more detailed description of the subject. Also, portions of the argument made within Etymology relies on the Attestations, so the natural order would seem to be that Etymology comes second.
Is there a nice artistic illustration or sketch of the Naglfar available which is free or fair use? It might be nice to have a picture of the ship at the top. Again, this is not required to pass GA Review.

Progress

1b is now satisfied. lead looks fine, no clear problems with word choice in Etymology

4 is now satisfied, no NPOV issues

I'm still concerned about coverage, Archaeological record should either be expanded a bit or if thats really all there is, then incorporated somehow into another section. Aaron north (talk) 04:58, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]