Talk:Sinmara/GA1
GA Review
[edit]Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
I am reviewing this article. Cirt (talk) 21:39, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
| Image review (completed) Cirt (talk) 21:46, 17 December 2008 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
One image used, image is free-use on en.wiki but should not be transferred to Wikimedia Commons without further investigation: Image page checks out okay.
|
| Stability review (completed) Cirt (talk) 21:46, 17 December 2008 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
Good article nomination on hold
[edit]This article's Good Article promotion has been put on hold. During review, some issues were discovered that can be resolved without a major re-write. This is how the article, as of December 18, 2008, compares against the six good article criteria:
- 1. Well written?: Written in clear and understandable language. Passes here.
- 2. Factually accurate?: Duly cited throughout to WP:RS/WP:V sources. Passes here.
- 3. Broad in coverage?: First off, perhaps the two subsections should be switched, so that the Etymology analysis goes after the descriptive material. Also, feels like a bit is missing in this article. Other articles I reviewed on similar topics, for example Surtr, were more extensive, both descriptively, and analytically. Could use some additional info and analysis from secondary sources, i.e. along the lines of Theories, Place names and modern influence, etc.
- 4. Neutral point of view?: Written in a neutral tone. Passes here.
- 5. Article stability? See above. Passes here.
- 6. Images?: See above. Passes here.
Please address these matters soon and then leave a note here showing how they have been resolved. After 48 hours the article should be reviewed again. If these issues are not addressed within 7 days, the article may be failed without further notice. Thank you for your work so far. Cirt (talk) 02:33, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
- Regarding #3: I've since swapped the sections as I agree with your premise—it makes for a much easier read. The problem with adding more information to this article is that Sinmara is an extremely obscure figure. Sinmara is only mentioned in the obscure and notoriously hard to approach poem Fjölsvinnsmál, and the most recently widely available translation of the Poetic Edda (Larrington, 1999) doesn't include a translation of it at all. Of the three English language dictionaries (Lindow, Orchard, and Simek) on Norse mythology, only Simek gives her a mention, and it's brief. As a result, many who could be considered well versed on the subject of Germanic mythology have never heard of her, and there appears to be nothing to add to a "modern influence" section. I'm still surprised that an illustration exists of her. Basically, it appears that there is very little more to be said about Sinmara out there at the moment, unfortunately. :bloodofox: (talk) 03:15, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
- There appear to be some sources not yet used in the article here. Cirt (talk) 03:25, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
- The other English language sources here seem to dominantly focus on Rydbergian theory, which is generally not accepted (Rydberg equated numerous figures together that the source material does not, and the result is a labyrinthine mass of theories). What you see here is what is attested about Sinmara. However, since it connects with Rydberg's proposed etymology of Sinmara, it's worth mentioning with it. I've since added Rydberg's equations about Sinmara. :bloodofox: (talk) 13:14, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
- Etymology and Theories should be two separate subsections. And also, if, as you state, The other English language sources here seem to dominantly focus on Rydbergian theory, which is generally not accepted (Rydberg equated numerous figures together that the source material does not, and the result is a labyrinthine mass of theories). - this should also be explained and mentioned in the article. In other words, who says that these theories are "generally not accepted..." etc, etc, and also what they are. Cirt (talk) 20:41, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
- With the addition of extra commentary, but all of the theories we have so far are based around this etymology. By "the other English language sources here..." I was referring to the Google book hits that were not here. Rydberg's critics should be handled on Rydberg's article. This is not the place for that can of worms. :bloodofox: (talk) 09:42, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
- However, there appear to be additional sources which discuss this topic. Cirt (talk) 09:44, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
- There are a few relevant sources, though most of them are fairly obscure and none that I know is in English. I suggest we put this on hold for a few years while Bloodofox learns Danish :) Haukur (talk) 11:13, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
- Yes, I agree with Haukur, I think that we should cancel the GA nomination for this article for now. The attestations regarding Sinmara are not as cut and dry as I thought when I nominated this article. The stanza amendment by Bugge presents a host of problems that English language sources do not approach, and with the sources available to me at the moment, I can't approach it as I would like to. Thank you for taking the time to look over the article and give me some feedback though, Cirt! :bloodofox: (talk) 11:32, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
- There are a few relevant sources, though most of them are fairly obscure and none that I know is in English. I suggest we put this on hold for a few years while Bloodofox learns Danish :) Haukur (talk) 11:13, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
- However, there appear to be additional sources which discuss this topic. Cirt (talk) 09:44, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
- With the addition of extra commentary, but all of the theories we have so far are based around this etymology. By "the other English language sources here..." I was referring to the Google book hits that were not here. Rydberg's critics should be handled on Rydberg's article. This is not the place for that can of worms. :bloodofox: (talk) 09:42, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
- Etymology and Theories should be two separate subsections. And also, if, as you state, The other English language sources here seem to dominantly focus on Rydbergian theory, which is generally not accepted (Rydberg equated numerous figures together that the source material does not, and the result is a labyrinthine mass of theories). - this should also be explained and mentioned in the article. In other words, who says that these theories are "generally not accepted..." etc, etc, and also what they are. Cirt (talk) 20:41, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
- The other English language sources here seem to dominantly focus on Rydbergian theory, which is generally not accepted (Rydberg equated numerous figures together that the source material does not, and the result is a labyrinthine mass of theories). What you see here is what is attested about Sinmara. However, since it connects with Rydberg's proposed etymology of Sinmara, it's worth mentioning with it. I've since added Rydberg's equations about Sinmara. :bloodofox: (talk) 13:14, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
- There appear to be some sources not yet used in the article here. Cirt (talk) 03:25, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
GA not passing at this time
[edit]Closing this GA Review. Unfortunately, per above, I cannot put the GA on Hold for a few years. :P - But Bloodofox (talk · contribs) has done some great work here so far. Cirt (talk) 19:02, 19 December 2008 (UTC)