Talk:Urðarbrunnr/GA1

GA Review

Hi! I will be doing the GA review of this article, and I should have the full review up within a few hours. Dana boomer (talk) 18:54, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

   • In the lead, you say "An amount of scholarly theory". "An amount" is weasel-y. Perhaps just "Scholarly theory"?
   • In the "Poetic Edda" section, what does Stanza 111 say about it?

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):

   • Is there nothing that has resulted from this? It has had no influence on anything that remains today?

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

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:

Nice work! I am putting the article on hold to allow you time to address the few minor concerns I have raised above. If you have any questions, you can ask them here on the review page or on my talk page. Dana boomer (talk) 19:11, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Hello and thanks! I've delayed my response to look for the answers to your points. It seems that this subject has had little influence out there that I can find outside of a few paintings with more depict the Norn trio. So, at the moment, I don't think it's enough to mention or warrant the very brief section it would result in - the painting we have up right now is one of the few depictions of it. Other than that, I am not seeing much in terms of pop culture references. If and when I find some notable references, I'll gladly compile and add them. I suppose a well/spring/lake is not the easiest thing to name things after in modern popular culture, even in Scandinavia.

The stanza you've mentioned (Hávamál, 111) is a keen observation on your part and I appreciate your attention to detail. I'm currently trying to figure out how best to present this stanza. I'm admittedly confused by it - the poem is the result of the stitching together of various poems, and this is where two sections come together, and so the confusion. :bloodofox: (talk) 04:34, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

If you feel that there's not enough to warrant a "popular culture" section, then I will bow to your expertise :) And, if you're currently working on adding the information on the new stanza, then that's great. I am passing the article to GA status now, even though you may be adding some things, because it meets the criteria of GA status. Dana boomer (talk) 12:11, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Great and thanks! I've included what I think is the best way to approach that stanza for now with the assistance of haukurth (talk · contribs). :bloodofox: (talk) 17:31, 29 August 2008 (UTC)