Talk:Æsir-Vanir War

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Æsir-Vanir War is currently a good article nominee. An editor has placed this article on hold to allow improvements to be made in order to satisfy the good article criteria. Recommendations have been left on the review page, and editors have seven days to address these issues. Improvements made in this period will influence the reviewer's decision whether or not to list the article as a good article. Date: 05:52, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

	Mythology Portal This article is supported by WikiProject Mythology . This project provides a central approach to Mythology-related subjects on Wikipedia. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.
Start	This article has been rated as start-Class on the Project's quality scale. (If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Norse history and culture, a WikiProject related to all activities of the Norse people, both in Scandinavia and abroad, prior to the formation of the Kalmar Union in 1397. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
Start	This article has been rated as start-Class on the Project's quality scale. (If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.

	This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
Start	This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
Additional information and associated task forces: This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-Class status: Referencing and citation: not checked Coverage and accuracy: not checked Structure: not checked Grammar: not checked Supporting materials: not checked This article is not currently associated with a task force. To tag it for one or more task forces, please add the task force codes from the template instructions to the template call.

A fact from Æsir-Vanir War appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know? column on 12 June 2008.

[edit] Indo-European invasion section

I have no idea what Dumézil is on about with the "Middle-Eastern migration". However, because Lindow mentions vanir exhibiting incestuous practices, to identify them as a historical people all one needs to do is find such practices in European history. So far as I'm aware, the only populations to exhibit this was the archaic Hellenic tribes, but they are somewhat out of the way in Scandinavia, and also separated by about a millennia of history--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 05:39, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] References

Brought over from [1]:

Hi. I'm no expert on the subject, but it seems to me that such an important part of the eda needs to be far more sourced then just the four you have there. Maybe I have high standards, but I see at least three different sources for each section in any article as a minimum. Also, the images seem very modern depictions of the subject.--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 22:12, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

There are three primary sources here: the Poetic Edda, Prose Edda, and Heimskringla. The references in these sections are all translations and, when there's anything more than a direct translation, it's directly sourced. I don't see why we would need reference tags from multiple translations for a few stanzas - the article is pretty air-tight in terms of references. If you can spot a point where it's not, please point it out. :bloodofox: (talk) 06:04, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Wasn't talking about primary sources. Its the secondary and tertiary sources I'm more concerned with. --mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 06:12, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

So you are talking about the "Theories" section? :bloodofox: (talk) 06:14, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Æsir-Vanir War/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Review is imminent; article does not quick-fail. Arsenikk ^(talk) 10:49, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

   The lead does not summarize all aspects of the article; add another paragraph that relates to the meta—sources and theories. As a minimum mention Edda and Heimskringla and that theories exist (all sections should be mentioned in the lead). Otherwise I have done some minor copyediting; it is generally well written prose. The only sentence that does not read good is the one exchange of gods; I tried to fix it up but I don not really feel I did a good job at it. I am also a bit concerned with that you are talking about what Lindow feels and thinks. Though he is a scholar, these are words to avoid in an encyclopedia.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   It is in my opinion better to use good old books for references than questionable Internet resources; I applaud your choice of references, but I cannot verify them. Requirements for references are not high for GA, but I am a little concerned that the entire theory section has only one reference; you are putting it all in the hands of Lindow. Is it possible to find other references for at least some of these theories (for instance scholar journal articles) or other works on Norse mythology?

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

   I do not feel that reciting the theories by only one scholar concludes to a fair point of view; I mention this under criterion 2b—all single researchers are biased, but two comprehensive authors should balance each other out nicely.

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars etc.:

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):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   I am putting it on hold; fix the lead and find at least another (two more to satisfy mrg3105) reference for the controversial theories and do some rephrasing and it will be passed. Overall a nice and comprehensive article. Arsenikk ^(talk) 12:07, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Hello and thanks for taking the time to review this article. One thing I should probably clarify is that the reason Lindow is referenced so much in the "Theories" section is because his encyclopedia entry provides a basic overview of theories regarding the subject. The two main theories on this particular subject are easily the invasion theory and the Freyja/Gullveig connection and can be expanded accordingly. I agree that the theories section needs more citations (and expansion) but I should note that these are not just Lindow's theories; he doesn't state he agrees or disagrees either way outside of where I've noted he's expressed his opinions. You can, by the way, confirm all of these references through books.google.com. :bloodofox: (talk) 05:40, 12 June 2008 (UTC)