Talk:Ragnarök/GA1
GA Review
[edit]- It is reasonably well written.
- a (prose):
b (MoS): 
- a (prose):
- The prose is generally clear except one small thing in Prose Edda, it would be nice to specify who or what High is.
- According to the Manual of Style, the blockquote format should not be used for quotations of less than four lines long. There are three blockquotes that have less than three lines within. I'm not sure what's the reasoning behind this since even the example provided in the MOS page contains one line.
- It is factually accurate and verifiable.
- a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
- a (references):
- Well referenced with adequate inline citations.
- It is broad in its coverage.
- a (major aspects): b (focused):
- a (major aspects):
- Check. An IPA pronunciation of Ragnarök would be useful in the lead, many people probably wont know how to read ö.
- It follows the neutral point of view policy.
- a (fair representation): b (all significant views):
- a (fair representation):
- Check.
- It is stable.
- No evidence of recent or on-going conflicts.
- It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic.
- a (tagged and captioned): b (lack of images does not in itself exclude GA): c (non-free images have fair use rationales):
- a (tagged and captioned):
- All images are free and properly tagged.
- Overall:
- a Pass/Fail:
- a Pass/Fail:
The article is well written and on par with GA standards and I greatly enjoyed reading this very interesting topic. The issues I discovered are very minor and do not require a re-write in order to be corrected. I'm placing the nomination on hold until these minor issues listed above are resolved.-- Ευπάτωρ Talk!! 20:38, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks for taking the time to look over this! If someone doesn't beat me to it, I'll see what I can do about the IPA guide. I believe I've fixed the issues you've raised - not much information is given about the trio of High, Just-As-High, and Third. I will create an article on them that examines them more thoroughly and the theories around them. Off hand, what recommendations would you make for this article to reach Featured Article status? :bloodofox: (talk) 21:48, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
- Wonderful. I have passed the article. Congratulations! I would recommend further improving and expanding the lead slightly. In additon, the theories section could also be expanded. The article's size is currently around 28kb. You can expand it until it reaches roughly 35-40kb and then nominate the article for FA status. I'm not sure if this would be necessary, but you might also touch upon the fact Ragnarök has been a theme in popular culture, particulalry metal music. You may also get some extra feedback from the peer review process. Good luck.-- Ευπάτωρ Talk!! 22:18, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks for the advice! I've considered these things as well, and I will see what I can do. :bloodofox: (talk) 22:53, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
- Wonderful. I have passed the article. Congratulations! I would recommend further improving and expanding the lead slightly. In additon, the theories section could also be expanded. The article's size is currently around 28kb. You can expand it until it reaches roughly 35-40kb and then nominate the article for FA status. I'm not sure if this would be necessary, but you might also touch upon the fact Ragnarök has been a theme in popular culture, particulalry metal music. You may also get some extra feedback from the peer review process. Good luck.-- Ευπάτωρ Talk!! 22:18, 20 July 2008 (UTC)