Talk:Vígríðr/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: maclean (talk) 05:37, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

GA review (see Wikipedia:What is a good article?)

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.

5. It is stable.

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):

   2 images, both WPCommons-hosted public domain images.

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

Notes

• In Poetic Edda, one block quote have quotation mark and the other doesn't. According to MOS:QUOTE the block quotes shouldn't have marks. Is there a reason for one having q marks and other not? of can we remove them?
• Has there been any academic analysis or ruminations on this location? or comparisons to other religious battlefields?

1. The reason for the quotation marks there is because Bellows's translation includes them, and therefore I have.
2. As I recall, when I wrote this article I couldn't find much talk about the field at all. Surely there's some discussion about the location out there somewhere, but it wasn't in the usual places when I was looking. I would have liked to included a "theories" section with such information. :bloodofox: (talk) 03:09, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

OK. maclean (talk) 00:49, 25 January 2010 (UTC)