Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Valkyrie/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted by Dabomb87 21:20, 23 June 2009 [1].

Valkyrie

[edit]
Nominator(s): :bloodofox: (talk) 09:26, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Toolbox

I am nominating this article because I think it meets all of the requirements. It's been a GA article for some time now after a very extensive GA review. I've held off nominating this article for a while because I wanted to bring a number of articles associated with it up to GA status (since they would also get a lot of hits upon promotion of this article). I've since done so with several articles that needed it (Einherjar, Valhalla, Fólkvangr) and created List of valkyrie names in Norse mythology to go with it (now a Featured List). It has since become very clear that, unfortunately, articles such as Odin, Frigg, and Freyja that are linked from here really need total rewrites but are extensive undertakings that will take a while to get the attention they deserve. Once they get those rewrites they'll be in FAR territory, but in the mean time I figured I may as well nominate this one here and see what happens. Anyway, enjoy the article! :bloodofox: (talk) 09:12, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

quick pointers from Otterathome (talk)
  1. Currently 2 dab links.
  2. There are a large amount of images, are they really all appropriate and helpful?
  3. Add {{clear}} above notes header to stop wrapping due to image.
  4. No external links?
  5. How about a further reading section? (WP:FURTHER)
  6. Only 1 category?--Otterathome (talk) 12:45, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  1. I think one was just taken care of by another editor.. Where is the other?
  2. I think all of the images in the article appropriately illustrate their given sections.
  3. Done.
  4. I see no need for any external links. There is no website that I would link to from this article. This article trounces any other website out there that I've seen handling the subject.
  5. I think the references provided are appropriate enough for further reading, and outside of these references, there's nothing I would recommend for the purpose of further reading outside of alternate translations of primary sources currently listed.. and I don't think that would make for an appropriate "further reading" section.
  6. Indeed, the article is listed under the single category of category:valkyries. I can't think of any appropriate categories for the article other than this that are not presumptive or original research. I think that's the most appropriate way of handling the matter.
Thanks! :bloodofox: (talk) 17:00, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree about having external links. Even if they don't even compare to this they are more useful to have than just names of books. Linking what you already have to Google Books would be fine. One of my feelings is that, as a student, I would use Wikipedia to do research, but my teacher won't let me cite it, so this should be a starting point. Reywas92Talk 18:19, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Like Bloodofox, I really can't think of any other pages to link to on the internet. However, Reywas92's suggestion about Google Books is very constructive. I will add GB links right away. –Holt (T•C) 18:23, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Now done. Feel free to adjust. –Holt (T•C) 20:14, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for taking the time to do this, Holt. :bloodofox: (talk) 02:08, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
About the dab links, the Atli one needs to be fixed, but Classical mythology is supposed to be like that. I don't know which Atli we're speaking of, so I haven't taken care of it. –Holt (T•C) 21:49, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments - I'm going to go through the article more thoroughly later, but I find the article incomplete without any of shield maidens (conflated in many stories, parallel in others and in tradition) and mention of Wagner is extremely limited along with there being no mention of the Völsunga beyond the lead. The article is less than 60k in size, so an expansion could be in order. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:53, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The shield maiden connection is handled in the origins and development section. Valkyries get a single mention in Völsunga saga, which occurs during the flyting between Sinfjötli and Guðmundr, where Sinfjötli accuses Guðmundr of having once been one. Note that both are male. I don't know if the Völsunga saga echo should be handled here; it's a direct echo of the flyting in Helgakviða Hundingsbana I converted to prose form and the potential implications of it are handled in the Runic inscriptions section. I don't see why we need anything other than a quick mention of Wagner, though bringing in a source that mentions that his work was responsible for repopularizing the notion of valkyries among the general public would be a good addition. :bloodofox: (talk) 02:20, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A sentence on each of the above should suffice. Nothing major. The reason why I mentioned shieldmaiden is during my check on the wiki versions Brynhildr and from personal knowledge. As the page says, she was a main character in the Völsunga saga (but there is that parallel). You could mention this parallel in the Prose Edda section following the line: "Sigurd cuts the mail from her, and she awakes and says her name is Hildr and "she is known as Brynhildr, and was a valkyrie."" The reason why I missed the shield maiden is the source addressing them as "shield girls". Quite strange. :) In the Valkyrie names section, you could mention Brynhildr and the different names per Wagner et al. This would allow you to put in another connection between the Edda, Völsunga saga, and Wagner. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:37, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I think the "shield girls" thing is a bit odd too, and it's presumably due to the sometimes weird English translation of the work it's quoted from. I should point out that Brynhildr is only directly referred to as a valkyrie in the Prose Edda section you've mentioned above, and she appears not only in Völsunga saga as a main figure but also in various other forms of the cycle (for example, the famous Nibelungenlied, where she is referred to as a queen of Iceland, and so forth). I think the wise move would be to just limit it to where she is referred to as a valkyrie and let readers click her name to see where else she appears. As for Wagner's work, I think it would be best to limit mentions of him and other modern adaptations to the "Modern influence" section. Wagner's sources of inspiration could be mentioned with the composition of his work, but wouldn't that be obvious enough and best handled in depth on the individual articles of the works themselves? :bloodofox: (talk) 03:06, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know the answer to Wagner, to be honest. I think I'll wait to see what other people say. If no one sees it as a problem, then I wouldn't bother expanding. I just have a thing for Wagner and the Völsunga saga (along with the Nibelungenlied) as I am descended from the Burgundians and it was of early interest to me. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:47, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ahh, then I highly recommend a visit to the island of Bornholm (if you haven't already been there). It's a beautiful place with lots of history, and it's very interesting to see where it all likely began for the Burgundians! :bloodofox: (talk) 02:32, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: There are at least 15 quotes. Most of them English literal translations of Norse poetic texts. Can't those be converted to prose? Please do so for better readability. --Redtigerxyz Talk 17:48, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The material that is quoted is material that is difficult to summarize or interpret. I've tried to convert as much of the article into prose as possible; some of this material cannot be converted into prose without warping the meaning - some of it open to numerous theories. :bloodofox: (talk) 01:44, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose: While the article is extensive and fairly comprehensive, (see ottava Rima on Wagner and Shield Maidens) it does not at the moment meet the required standard. The main problems I see are:
  • Prose quality. The prose in the lead and elsewhere is clumsy and poor, requiring a thorough copy-edit. Too many brackets, too many unexplained terms, poor sentence structure. Sometimes it is hard to determine the meaning of sentences.
  • The lead itself does not effectively summarise the whole article, as it should according to WP guidance.
  • Arrangement. The article begins with a long series of "attestations", which seem to be a series of Valkyrie legends and stories taken from different sources. While this material is of interest, it is poorly translated and summarised and in the wrong place. This sort of exemplifying material should be low down within the article. The material in "Origins and development" should logically come first in the article, after Etymology, and much of the other descriptive and archaeological material should also appear before the stories. Description should come first and examples later.
These are three quite major problems that will need a lot of work to make the article FA standard. Xandar 23:46, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  1. I direct you to my responses to Ottava regarding Wagner and Shield Maidens. The material is there. If you have further qualms regarding it, please provide details as to exactly what you mean or what needs to be added.
  2. Give me some examples, otherwise I presume you're simply unaware of the inherent issues with the fact that much of this material comes from verse poetry. Previous thorough reviews don't seem to have had this problem.
  3. Specifics please. The lead summarizes the article as far as I can tell, and I have yet to hear this issue from someone else (including the nigh 40 GA articles I've written on material from Norse mythology).
  4. The attestations are just that: attestations. This is the material being discussed, and therefore it's presented first. Without it, the rest makes no sense at all, as all arguments and theories are based on the material in the attestation section, which one must be familiar with first before attempting to make sense of the theories and arguments. The attestations are the meat of the article. With all other Germanic mythology articles we bring out the attestations section first; it's logical and essentially a requirement as this is where the information regarding the figures being discussed is. The theories are based off of this material. :bloodofox: (talk) 01:44, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
1.You can work those matters out with Ottava
2.It doesn't matter where the material comes from, the Featured Article standards specify "professional standard prose". Although this can be interpreted loosely, prose that is hard to understand and convoluted does not come near to meeting that standard. Featured Articles represent the best of Wikipedia, therefore standards are higher than for other review levels.
Some examples of prose problems.
  • In Norse mythology, a valkyrie (from the Old Norse valkyrja, meaning "chooser of the slain"[1]) is one of a host of female figures who choose those who die in battle. The valkyries bring their chosen who have died bravely in battle to the afterlife hall of the slain, Valhalla, ruled over by the god Odin, where the deceased warriors become einherjar.
The first sentence is ambiguous. They "choose" those who die in battle for what - marriage? It isn't stated. Some information is in the second sentence, which repeats information about choosing from the first. It then states that the deceased warriors become "einherjar", while giving no idea what this obscure word might mean, or what the purpose is. Providing a link is not enough - this information should be clearly in the article.
  • Valkyries are attested in the Poetic Edda, compiled in the 13th century from earlier traditional sources; the Prose Edda and Heimskringla, written in the 13th century by Snorri Sturluson; Njáls saga, a Saga of Icelanders written in the 13th century; throughout the poetry of skalds, in a 14th century charm, and in various runic inscriptions.
The word "attested" seems obscure and a form of jargon as used here. It would be clearer to say something like "Valkyries appear in many Norse mythological works including..." The sentence is also such a long list that it needs breaking up for comprehensability. A second sentence, following the description of Njal's saga would help solve this problem.
  • Other terms for valkyries include óskmey (Old Norse "wish girl"), appearing in the poem Oddrúnargrátr, and Óðins meyar (Old Norse "Odin's girls").
Do both terms appear in the poem, or only one? The translations: "wish girl" and "Odin's girls" are poor, since "girl" should not be used in this context (giving the wrong impression), "maiden" would be the standard usage in this context.
  • In stanza 30 of the poem Völuspá, a völva tells Odin that "she saw" valkyries coming from far away who are ready to ride to "the realm of the gods." The völva follows this with a list of 6 valkyries: Skuld (Old Norse, possibly "debt" or "future") who "bore a shield," Skögul ("shaker") who "was with her," Gunnr ("war"), Hildr ("battle"), Göndul ("wand-wielder"), and Geirskögul (Old Norse "Spear-Skögul"). Afterward, the völva says that she has listed the "ladies of the War Lord, ready to ride, valkyries, over the earth
This like many of the passages in the Old Norse attestations section, is horrible! What is a "volva"? We have to guess. The sentence mixes past and present tense confusingly. "she saw" does not need quotation marks. The context of the sighting is unexplained, however we have lengthy bracketed and often vague translations of the names of the valkyries. The final sentence is also poorly translated and confusingly set out.
  • In the poem Helgakviða Hjörvarðssonar, a prose narrative says that the unnamed and silent young man (son of the Norwegian King Hjörvarðr and Sigrlinn of Sváfaland) sits atop a burial mound and witnesses nine valkyries riding by. He finds one of the nine particularly striking (this valkyrie is explained later in a prose narrative as named Sváva, the daughter of king Eylimi, and who "often protected him in battles"), and the valkyrie speaks to him.
Similar problems. Information is put in lengthy brackets, mid-sentence, which should be properly set out in separate sentences. ... "the unnamed man" - we don't know him, so should be "an unnamed man" .... "sits atop" - should be "sits on top of"
  • This is followed by "I send you, I look at you, wolfish perversion, and unbearable desire, may distress descend on you and jöluns wrath. Never shall you sit, never shall you sleep ... (that you) love me as yourself." Poor translation. This could almost still be in Old Norse for all the sense it makes.
There are many more passages like this.
3. MOS:INTRO states that the lead should summarise the article in a way that it could stand on its own as a mini-article. Archaeology and runic sources are barely referred to, and as a whole the lead tells us little about the subject. Also the fact that you have written 40 articles leads me to the thought that perhaps these articles contain problems because they haven't had the necessary time spent on polishing and refining them.
4. The "attestations". You say that this is the material being discussed, so it is presented first. But this is the wrong way round. This is not an essay, and Wikipedia articles should be set out in an encyclopedic manner. The policy WP:PRIMARY states that primary sources like the poems and myths that fill the initial sections of this article, should be used only with care. Wikipedia articles should be based on secondary sources. But what the article does at present is to set out a series of primary sources, expecting the reader to glean information piecemeal from these sources. This is not an article. Clear explanation and description gleaned from reliable secondary sources should form the first part of the article. The primary sources or "attestations" should be at the end of the article, and material at present hidden at the bottom of the article, needs to be moved up. Xandar 01:11, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The Featured Article Rhinemaidens provides a good example of how to handle a related subject. Xandar 14:03, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I strongly disagree. The Rhinemaidens are a modern literary creation from a single source, whereas valkyries are an element of Germanic paganism from multiple, at times conflicting sources, nor do scholars come to an underlining agreement about the implications of these sources or the underlining belief in valkyries as a whole. You simply cannot create an essay-form article out of the subject of valkyries like you can with Wagner's Rhinemaidens and hope to be at all as accurate or neutral as the article is now. This is why things like "she saw" are in quotes - it is not clear exactly what she means; she's suddenly speaking in third person and may or may not be in some sort of trance or simply remembering something. This is verse poetry we're dealing with here. Furthermore, an einherjar is exactly what the article describes in the introduction - it couldn't be anymore clear. I haven't had time to respond to your FAC comments, and it looks like I may need to pull this article from it soon as I don't think I'll have time to go through the FAC process here soon. :bloodofox: (talk) 16:07, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see the difference between summarising verse and summarising prose. You are just summarising ideas and setting them in readable prose. However I do think a good amount of time is needed to polish an article for FA. I'm not out to "get" you. I just can't see this article as reaching the required level. As for an example of a featured article dealing with folklore from many sources, try looking at Vampire. Xandar 19:58, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think his main point is that it's easy to make a coherent readable summary of a single coherent artistic work by a single author. It's a lot harder to readably summarize a number of disparate—possibly contradictory—accounts from numerous sources, in prose and in verse. Vampires are different in the other direction - there are so very many variants that the only practical thing is to summarize secondary sources. With valkyries it's still possible to give a decent overview of all the important primary sources and I'm very glad Bloodofox has done that, I think that makes the article very useful - regardless of whether it should be a featured article or not.
When writing about mythical, legendary or fictional material there's certainly nothing wrong with spending a significant part of the article summarizing the original literary accounts (i.e. "the primary sources") - the Rhinemaidens article doesn't shirk from that. The question is whether the valkyrie article can be made a bit more readable without going into WP:SYNTH territory (which I know Bloodofox is keen to avoid). Haukur (talk) 20:15, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good. Could be sifted through for polishing. These are just at random—

  • Why was "host" linked to Wictionary? If it was going to stay, please note that your selection of "Noun 2 (second meaning) was hidden from the readers. But it shouldn't stay.
  • 13th century, but 14th-century charm. I corrected it, but there are other examples.
  • What does "various" add? What does "several" add (we know it's more than one from the plural; does several mean three? six? ten? Better to remove.
  • "twelve" but "11th"?
  • Hate "theorized", multiple times; maybe it's a personal quirk of mine.
  • MoS breach: external punctuation, please: "... appears commonly as simply a term for "woman," just as ...
  • "shield girls — Irish female warriors"—MoS breach: em dashes unspaced or en dashes spaced when interrupters. Tony (talk) 07:20, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'll try to address a few of your concerns:

  1. Some time back I linked "host" to the wiktionary since I was unsure whether that usage was particularly common. However, since English is not my first language, I shouldn't be the ultimate judge of the linking.
  2. Corrected the rest [2].
  3. I'll leave this to someone more proficient in English and its nuances.
  4. Same as above.
  5. It can get repetitive, but in lack of any other word bearing the same clear meaning, I have nothing else to suggest.
  6. Fixed.
  7. Being a direct quote, we can't do anything about mr. Simek's quirky punctuation habits.

Feel free to report more. –Holt (T•C) 12:54, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support. After reading the oppose of Xandar, I undertsnd his point. But I think that this topic does not seem to be covered by such an amount of complex coherent sources that an article in the manner of Vampire would result: Vampire is generally known and popular mythical creature that appears to have almost a final united form and is covered by immense number of sources due to his overall popularity. Valkyrie is more of a mythological and generally minor creature compared to Vampire, which is rather more folkloric (therefore much better covered by sources) and can not be compared with the other one. I think that the topic is in this article covered brilliantly. The style rather than to create its own picture of Valkyrie, it fluently and adequately sums up and explains the provided sources. Of course this picture is not complete, but it is as complete as the sources are. I didn't have any significant problems while reading it and I think it covers all of the WP:FACR.--  LYKANTROP  ✉ 10:35, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support. This article is one of the best we have on Old Norse and Germanic topics on Wikipedia, and most definitely the best and most comprehensive article on valkyries that exists on the internet. It covers the topic in an excellent manner, and is well referenced with important secondary sources suitable for further study. I am familiar with the primary sources (and the secondary sources, for that sake) that are used in this article, and I must say that Bloodofox has handled the summaries of both the prose and the verse excellently. When summarising verse you can easily land in a quagmire of inaccuracy and blatant errors due to the ambiguity and linguistic complications of Old Norse poetry. Bloodofox has carefully evaded these problems, and written the summaries of the primary sources in a way that is very suitable for Wikipedia and its policies. When the translations themselves are hard to understand, the author should of course not make any attempt at interpreting the translations, but rather quote them. I think it meets all requirements of WP:FACR, and see no valid reason to why the article should not be promoted. Xandar has given some constructive criticism, but in the end his arguments about professional prose etc. are not tenable, as this is a special case in terms of primary sources we are dealing with. –Holt (T•C) 14:04, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My opinion remains that this article is not up to standard on quality of prose (numerous examples given), and format. Valkyries are not such an obscure subject that there are not suitable secondary sources, and a simple rearrangement and copyedit of content would do much to raise the standard. Since no attempt has been made to deal with these points, my objection remains. Xandar 23:06, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I respect your position, but I do not fully agree with you. I will have a closer look at the examples you have given and see if there is any room for copy editing without changing the meaning of the text. –Holt (T•C) 17:00, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Image quibble as follows:

Other Images are verifiably in the public domain or appropriately licensed. Jappalang (talk) 13:58, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved, thanks for pointing it out. –Holt (T•C) 17:00, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Broad General Support. The article is a well-researched, comprehensive treatment of its topic. In my view, it meets the featured article criteria for length, images, referencing, appropriate structure and lead, stability, neutrality, sourcing, and comprehensiveness.

The valkyries are creatures from Germanic mythology, with most information circa 13th century. The extant manuscripts do not lend themselves easily to a clear flow of narrative. There are inconsistencies, lost segments, plus contrasting translations and interpretations; the primary sources marry verse and prose, with varying clarity.

A reviewer commented above (and on the FAC talkpage) they believe the article substantially fails to meet requirements of a concise lead giving an effective summary of the article, and suffers from very poor writing and structure. I disagree. I think the lead acceptable and the structure effective; the alternative structure suggested might work, but I don't see either structure as inferior. The current structure comprises etymology, attestations, and scholarly theories. That sequence is used in many Norse mythology articles assessed as Good by reviewers—some of whom have many featured articles under their belt, and many of whom are among the most highly respected and experienced reviewers in the GA project. Of course, this isn't GAC; however, if such a critical structural flaw were present it's reasonable to expect it would have been raised before.

The remaining criterion is "engaging, even brilliant" prose. For me, it's something hard to quantify, but I know it when I see it. King Arthur is one article where I saw it. Interestingly, two articles linked from that one—Y Gododdin and Historia Regum Britanniae are closer in structure to Valkyrie than the style proposed above. Here, I think the prose in the article strong, but the situation complicated by the material, which means lots of "foreign" and archaic terms. I'm swayed by Tony having given it a light copyedit; and, while it may benefit from still futher polishing (hence 'broad' 'general' caveats), I support its promotion. –Whitehorse1 23:17, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I endorse this view. Haukur (talk) 23:26, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Even leaving structural issues aside, at the very least the article needs a full and thoroughgoing copy edit. There is no sign of this having happened to the necessary extent. The wording at present is IMO not good enough to represent Wikipedia as a feature article. I don't know if this is the case, but the article gives the strong impression of having been written by someone whose first language is not English. The majority of the problems of the article are caused by the poor quality english which makes comprehension very difficult. It is quite possible to make comprehensible translations of norse poetry; see example on this page. It is also possible to write good prose articles on the subject. (see Britannica). However most of my comments have not been addressed. Even the use of the inappropriate word "girls" (made also by another reviewer) has not been altered. I would advise that individual members of the Guild of copy editors be requested to take on the task of rewording the article. Xandar 00:27, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Xander, you are very clearly unfamiliar with the sources at hand. Old Norse poetry is infamous for being archaic, cryptic, and outright mysterious; the older the poem the more so. We must be careful, as always, to cite our sources directly and avoid WP:SYNTH. You may want to read the extensive GA review this article has seen, as it may well answer some of your questions: Talk:Valkyrie/GA1. The "girls" thing is a directly attributed quote. There is likely e a reason for the choice on the part of the translator, but it's not our call to make. We can, however, cite another translation next to it if needed. My native language is English (thanks). The Britannica article is an extremely simple overview that goes into no detail and is of little value. Our introduction stomps it. The misinformation-pushing external link you've posted above does not summarize anything, it just outright posts a translation of Darraðarljóð (and does not credit the translator..). In fact, we cover Darraðarljóð far more accurately, neutrally, and extensively (and largely in prose, might I add..): Valkyrie#Nj.C3.A1ls_saga. :bloodofox: (talk) 02:11, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Object -

  • title ought to be labelled "Valkyrie (Norse mythology)" or "Valkyrie (Mythology)"

WhatisFeelings? (talk) 23:47, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is the primary topic. There are hat notes at the top of the article. Please read Wikipedia:Disambiguation. :bloodofox: (talk) 02:18, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose.

  • I am a little puzzled at the structure of this (and some other related articles eg. Valhalla, Odin). While a tremendous amount of work has gone in to the article, I think I in general agree with Xandar. I hate to say this, but it just doesn't read like an encyclopedia article for a lay person. It reads somewhat as though put together by specialists or experts in the field using a structure that I expect would be of value: to specialists or experts in the field. Bloodofox's remark above - "Xander, you are very clearly unfamiliar with the sources at hand" - is itself revealing. Let me state up front that I am in the same boat as Xander - which would make me well-qualified to be a reviewer of this as an encyclopedia entry, I would have thought.
  • There should be a 'middle way' here. The extensive recitation of "attestations" (a technical term which I have come across previously in articles in this field) does appear to raise issues in respect of WP:PRIMARY, while I accept that the diverse nature of accounts of Valkyries in these items is itself important to the subject. Perhaps I will be howled down, but I suggest that the attestations section be reduced to a few paragraphs which summarise the range of attributes and roles played by Valkyries in the eddas and sagas, then (I think?) go to archaeological record, then more or less on to "origins and development", which I would have thought would be the heart of this as an encyclopedia article.
  • An alternative (or additional) option would be to have a separate WP article, "List of accounts of Valkyries in the eddas and sagas", which would be a table containing a version of the text of the first half of the current article.
  • An editor has remarked during discussion, above, "The extant manuscripts do not lend themselves easily to a clear flow of narrative." True, and that is where we as editors, pulling together the secondary sources, should come in. By the time we are done, I think we should have created a clear flow of narrative that guides the lay reader through the otherwise arcane and complex environment of the 13th century sources.
  • Related to the above, I had trouble following the section titled "Theories". We just jump, without any introduction, straight in to some material about ways in which the concept of Valkyrie may (or may not) have been used in other contexts. As a lay person I could not really follow this discussion.
  • Separate to the above structural issue, the article needs copyediting, with problems evident from the first sentence of the lead: "...a host of female figures who decide among those who die in battle." The expression "decide among those who die in battle" does not make sense unless in the same sentence as "bring these chosen warriors". An improvement might be: "a host of female figures who select, from amongst those who die in battle, the warriors whom in the afterlife shall be brought to the hall of the slain, Valhalla, ruled over by the god Odin." But this is one of many phrases that could be improved: "...dwelt in a house sited in a location called..."; "...asks her what gift he will receive with the name she has bestowed upon him, yet that he will not accept it if he cannot have her as well..."; "...to assist Sigrún in her plight to avoid her betrothment" are some other examples from early in the article.
  • The section "Origins and development" feels underdone: each paragraph is a summary of one scholarly work, with long quotes, and not much attempt to bring the various sources together and summarise by theme, issue, time period or any other criteria / framework.
  • In conclusion, I am moderately experienced at GA review, while very new to FA, and I am unsure why I seem to be out of synch with the support several editors have given the article. If I am a long way off base here, I hope someone will - civilly - give me a run-down on why, either here or at my talk page. If this article does not make it through this FAC, I would welcome being contacted and asked to cooperate with improvements at the article in future. hamiltonstone (talk) 02:57, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
With all due respect, here is the main problem with your comments and Xandar's: the verse poetry is what it is. It cannot be turned into an easily-chewed and digested essay. The reason for this is because the verse poetry is itself riddled with obscure references and the meanings behind these often-corrupt stanzas are much debated. I've attempted to convert the verse poetry into prose where it is clear, but I refuse to violate WP:SYNTH and WP:NPOV to produce a false feeling of clarity. The fact is that the attestations are disjointed, do not necessarily agree, and are often outright mysterious. Some express annoyance when confronted with this hard fact, but it is what it is. The wording in the attestation section has been very careful chosen based off sometimes up to four translations of the Poetic Edda. It's disjointed because the stanzas themselves are. They can't be much fooled around with before their meanings are altered, and when that occurs we are misrepresenting the material.
Secondly, I feel that the attestations section is the very core of the article. Everything else in the article is entirely based around it, and rightly so. In fact, everything we know about valkyries comes from these very attestations, which we here handle carefully and in detail. Theories are produced about the attestations, and these theories very frequently point to and cite these oft-cryptic tales and mentions. Scholars do not directly spit out these attestations, they simply refer back to translations (while they sometimes provide a few stanzas of their own proposed translations, we are using the translations they're pointing to, if they're not directly reading the Old Norse, in which case we'd have to just post the Old Norse, but anyway...). It's a spiraling staircase. Basically, either we provide the attestations themselves or we dance around the very subject of the article, providing only vague descriptions. The valkyries are the attestations. Note that we're not making any judgment calls of our own here on any of the attestations, we're simply providing what they say.
In fact, our approach isn't odd at all for dictionaries on the subject; Lindow's (Norse Mythology...) and Simek's (Dictionary of Northern Mythology) take what is the same approach - they spit out what is known about the subject to familiarize their audience with the sources, and then they comment on what has been theorized about the subject. It's a very logical approach. On the other hand, they have little space, and therefore they can only go so far, yet we have limitless space, and thus we're able to do what they are cannot: I am pretty sure that we now provide the most accurate, expansive, and extensive article on the subject that has ever existed. Furthermore, stating which attestation comes from what source (and even where it appears in the source itself) is absolutely crucial; there are volumes of works about the dating, manuscript versions, variations, and origins of each source. The above dictionaries are, like we, quite careful to note what information came from where.
I've written many articles. Early on I ended up with this structure because, in my opinion, there is simply no other more neutral, informative, and high-quality way of presenting the material. It is extremely effective. The attestations tell the tales, the theories process the tales. It seems that many others have agreed, as I have produced 38 other GA articles using the exact same structure, and I am not only in its utilization. :bloodofox: (talk) 04:04, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your response. I have some differences of view with some of your points, and have also identified what I see as some other areas for improvement in the article, but I want to leave those things for now, as it is getting very late in this part of the world. I thought I should try and sketch how I thought the text could look that outlines the portrayal of valkyries in the primary sources. I wanted to do this to be constructive, but also to demonstrate why I do not think the fragmentary nature and diverse portrayals of these mythical figures necessitates the direct presentation of the attestations. Please accept that the following sketch is rough, at times poorly phrased, and has paranthetic notes to the editor at points. It is meant simply to sketch a possible approach. It is written as though it were the first text that followed from the lead:

Origins (heading level 2)
Valkyries are known principally from old norse and old english documents of the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries, in particular the poetic edda, prose edda, some of the sagas and other norse texts, and some old english texts such as Sermo Lupi ad Anglos, written by Wulfstan II. In these works women appear sometimes as messengers or lovers, often riding or flying on horseback, though they are also referred to in other forms, such as women having swans' garments. However, while these texts are the most detailed records for these mythological figures, they are neither the only, nor even the earliest, representations of these enigmatic creatures (or similar text).

The earliest textual references that are generally believed to be Valkyries are in approximately the ninth century: the Idisi of the Merseburg Incantations ...(etc) (mention archaelogical finds here perhaps, or leave them until after the text sources)

Old norse and old english sources (heading level 3)
It is old norse sources, particularly the poetic and prose eddas, that provide the most complete - yet complex - picture of the Valkyrie.

In the poem Völuspá Valkyries are portrayed as "ladies of the War Lord, ready to ride" to "the realm of the gods", while in Grímnismál the god Odin expresses a wish that the valkyries Hrist ("shaker") and Mist ("cloud") would "bear him a [drinking] horn", and talks of other Valkyries who "bear ale to the einherjar" (a term which would need a phrase of explanation probably here). By contrast, in Völundarkviða, three Valkyries appear in a domestic scene, spinning linen on the shore of the lake, and they become the wives of three brothers; however after seven winters they fly off to a battle and do not return. They are described as the daughters of mythological kings.

Though they appear as messengers and as choosers of those fated to reach Valhalla, Valkyries are also described in more active roles. In Helgakviða Hjörvarðssonar, for example, one particular Valkyrie, Sváva, is said to have protected her father, king Eylimi, in battle, while in Helgakviða Hundingsbana I they protect Helgi amid a battle at Frekastein. In Sigrdrífumál, the Valkyrie Sigrdrífa claims more than merely the capacity to protect: she says that she angered Odin because she had "brought down" Hjalmgunnar in battle.

That is how I thought the material from the attestations could be framed as encyclopedic text rather than as laying out the sources.
Other issues that have come to me as I have been working on tihs:
  • There are no dates associated with the text and info on the archaeological finds. I would see that as important information in understanding the original, evolution and dissemination of this significant mythological figure. I would expect some if not all of the major finds will have had some dating work done, and should be included where possible.
  • The section "Modern influence" provides a good range of examples of the portrayal of Valkyries since 1800. However, it is remarkably free of any description of how they are portrayed in these works. I would suggest that Wagner's "Die Walküre" is probably the single most important cultural representation of the figure in modern culture. Of the many, sometimes contradictory, forms that the Valkyrie takes in the sagas and eddas, which features are brought to the fore by Wagner, and what have secondary sources said about why?
I am afraid that I strongly disagree. This is pure WP:SYNTH and completely glosses over the numerous difficulties and details about the subject. It does the reader no favors and is completely misleading. We currently detail each story as it is presented and in a completely neutral manner. We handle each mention on a case-by-case basis. Yet you are proposing we delete this and turn the article into some sort of blurry soup of an essay? This would not be a step forward, rather it would be many steps back. In the sample you've written above I can point out various points that are outright wrong and/or original observations ("messengers," "domestic scene").
Secondly, I believe that you are mistaken about the dates: doing a quick scan, I see dates for everything. If you are looking for a particular date, please identify exactly which. Furthermore, our current introduction provides as complete a description of the einherjar as possible.
Third, if you can find a study comparing Wagner and the sources, please identify it, as I have yet to see such a study. Also, wouldn't that be more appropriate for an article on Wagner's valkyries? :bloodofox: (talk) 20:44, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Taking your points in sequence. First, we may just have to agree to disagree. All WP interprets specialist (and primary source) literature to explain it to a contemporary lay audience. To do so is not WP:SYNTH. The difference between a full-length treatment of a topic such as this and an encyclopedia entry is that the encyclopedia entry necessarily reduces the range of difficulties and details to outline the important points. It should not "gloss over" those difficulties, but neither should it simply reproduce them in a form that a lay reader will have difficulty in understanding. I am sure my first draft, done in a couple of hours, is indeed a "blurry soup", but i do not resile from the purpose. I agree that my choice of "domestic scene" went too far; my fundamental position remains unchanged.
Second, I went back to the text on dates, and i was wrong to say there are no dates. There are indeed dates for the two runic inscriptions and the runestone U 1163, and the late 14th century "valkyrie stick". There appear to be no dates for three of the four images in the small image gallery in this section (which are excellent images, I should add), nor for the image of the figure on the horse at right, other than a reference in the text (not in the image captions) to them being Viking age - which is a period of nearly half a millenium; not what I would have thought of as a date, though it may be the case that more precise dating has not been achieved.
Third, I am reviewing the article, not writing it. I am happy to assist with editing etc, but I am an expert on neither Viking history nor Wagnerian music. I don't know of a study such as about which you ask, but I find it difficult to believe that a prominent musical and character theme in one of Western classical music's totemic artworks has not been addressed by music / cultural historians with an interest in that period / Wagner / the semiotics of Wagnerian opera. If this is an article about Valkyries, I just would have thought that it would be discussed here. If others think me wrong, I have no problem with that.
In conclusion, there is a tremendous amount of excellent research in this and related articles, and my main desire is to see it more appropriately summarised for what i thought would make an accessible encyclopedia article. I am happy to be a copyeditor / assistant in such a future process, though I can see bloodofox and I are a long way apart in our views. After today I am likely to be offline for about four days. hamiltonstone (talk) 00:31, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Hamiltonstone. The article as it at present stands is NOT an encyclopedia article. It is more a selection of poorly translated primary sources with very poor structure. An encyclopedia article needs to provide a clearly accessible DIGEST of secondary and some primary sources. The primary sources should be illustrative, and secondary to the clear explanatory text. The problems with the English of the article still persist. Until these matters are corrected, it will not be IMO a feature quality article. I feel you would be better advised, bloodofox, to accept some of the help and advice being offerred, rather than become defensive. We are not out to get you - just to get a better quality article for Wikipedia. Xandar 00:39, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I strongly disagree, and I have given examples above of encyclopedias handling the same material and using the same approach. :bloodofox: (talk) 15:03, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Excellent choice of quotes and pics. Id prefer a sharper definition in the opening sentence: "one of a host of female figures" scarlessly begins to capture their essence. And if you dont already know the topic its ambigious whats meant by "host" - a homogenous host of valkries or possibly a diverse bestiary of various female quasi - divinities? Maybe you could change it to "Valkyries ... were supernaturally gifted warrior maidens, who gathered around battlefields to choose warriors for Vallhalla from among the slain. " Some folk are just going to arrive at the article for quick definition, or might just read the lede and then skim through the pics and a few quotes. Maybe one or two longer quotes might help communicate how they were experienced, perhaps at least one from the modern era. I think this quote does it quite well for the modern ear, a lone warrior caught outdoors by a storm on the eve of the battle of clontarf when he encounters a mysterious stranger:


FeydHuxtable (talk) 17:58, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
All dabs are checked and fixed. Classical mythology is supposed to link to the disambiguation page, since the Erinyes (furies) appear in both cultures. –Holt (T•C) 09:48, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments I am beginning to read the article and will massage the prose if I can make it flow better, but please revert if I accidentally change meaning. The sourcing and info is fantastic and the subject matter would make a welcome addition ot the FA ranks, it just needs some help with the prose which I will try to do. I have alerted another editor, Eusebeus, who would be a great help to this. I will place queries below. Casliber (talk · contribs) 09:58, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
is one of a host of female figures who decide among those who die in battle - "decide" what? This does not scan for me - should it be "decide who will die in battle"?
Valkyries are described in the Poetic Edda, a book of poems compiled in the 13th century from earlier traditional sources; the Prose Edda and Heimskringla, two books written in the 13th century by Snorri Sturluson, and Njáls saga, a Saga of Icelanders written in the 13th century. - there must be some way to only mention '13th century' once....
In the poem Helgakviða Hjörvarðssonar, (a prose narrative says that) an unnamed and silent young man... - for me it reads much better without the bracketed bit and no meaning is lost as we know it is a mythological work. Is there a reason for not removing it?
  • Oppose I am very sorry but this article does not read well. This article requires something like a section Overview summarizing the attestations in a simple comprehensive way. As it now stands it is by no way an encyclopedic article. Vb (talk) 10:54, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree about the reading, but not on calling a section overview - that is the lead's job. Still, I think you mean some section called Attributes or Description? Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:06, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There is no way to do this "simply." The attestations are what they are; they are neither simple nor easy to digest. The attestations section is comprehensive as possible. The lead summarizes the entire article. :bloodofox: (talk) 15:00, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination withdrawn per here. Dabomb87 (talk) 21:23, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Valkyrie/archive1&oldid=1136457710"