Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Greece Runestones

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 promoted by Raul654 19:14, 10 February 2009 [1].

---

Greece Runestones

Nominator(s): Berig (talk)

I'm nominating this article for featured article because I hope it satisfies the criteria. I is already of GA status but I have expanded it considerably since it reached GA. Berig (talk) 15:35, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Comments -

• Sources in a non-English language need to state such in the sources.
• You need to list the bibliographic details for Rundata, rather than just linking to the wiki article.

Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Note that I didn't evaluate the non-English sources. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:10, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

I have tried to fix the issues you indicated. As for Rundata, I'm not sure what you mean but I've now followed the instructions given by the Rundata project.--Berig (talk) 21:03, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

For the Rundata, you need to list who is the publisher of the information, when it was published, etc. Just like you would for a book, etc. A link to their page isn't going to be enough, I'm afraid. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:51, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

I just verified how the database is referred to in the bibliography of a scholarly work (Jesch's book Ships and Men in the Late Viking Age (2001)), and she writes "Samnordisk rundatabas (http://www.nordiska.uu.se/forskn/samnord.htm)". If this is how scholars refer to the book in bibliographies, then why it is wrong for WP?--Berig (talk) 15:59, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Because the Wikipedia MOS doesn't allow the use of bare url links. That's why. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:09, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

I think I've found a solution.--Berig (talk) 16:45, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

I tweaked your solution and we're done! Ealdgyth - Talk 17:05, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your help!--Berig (talk) 17:07, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Oppose on criterion 3

• All images have verifiable licenses and adequate descriptions. Awadewit (talk) 16:03, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

• File:Greece runestones.JPG - This image needs a description, author and date.

• Oops - I forgot to mention that this image needs a source. All maps need a verifiable source against which to check the information included in them. Awadewit (talk) 01:43, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

I have given the source the map. The original source was Rundata 2.0, but after the update of the database it is even more easily verifiable. It's Rundata 2.5 with map functions offering both Google Earth and the Swedish map provider Eniro.--Berig (talk) 07:13, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

• Almost all of the self-made images of runestones need a more preceise description than "stone" or "runestone". It is clear from the article that each stone has specific number, for example. I would include the number of the stone and its location on the image description page and any other information you feel is essential to identifying that particular stone.
• File:U 270, Smedby.jpg, File:U 922, Uppsala cathedral.jpg, and File:U 446, Droppsta.jpg,

• The descriptions of these images do not specify what they are - please expand them.
• This image descriptions say that Johan Hadorph is the author of the image. According to Wikipedia's pitiful stub on him, he was an antiquarian who collected art, not an engraver or artist. Is Wikipedia's article simply incomplete (no, it can't be!)?
• I'm wondering if the Swedish PD release is quite right - what does Swedish law mean by "photographic works"? Does it mean original photographs? Is this image a photograph of the 17th-century engraving and would that count as an original photograph? I would have thought that this image would no longer be under copyright because the author's life + 70 years have passed (being that the author, whoever he was, lived in the 17th century).

• File:U 374, Örby.jpg and File:U 1087, Lövsta.jpg:

• The descriptions of these images do not specify what they are - please expand them.
• I have the same question about the Swedish PD release as above.
• The image descriptions say that Johan Peringskiöld is the author, but our stub on both the elder and younger describes them both as antiquarians, not engravers or artists. Again, is Wikipedia simply missing information?

• File:Sm 46, Erikstad.jpg - Could we get a first name for the author? Also, I have the same question about the Swedish PD release as above.

Hopefully it will not take much time to resolve these issues. I look forward to striking this oppose soon. Awadewit (talk) 17:12, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

I have tried to address all the issues you have indicated. As to the Swedish antiquarians of the 17th and the early 18th century, they were very different from those of today and they had to undertake considerable field work in order to find and document runestones. Drawing what they found in order to document it was a natural part of their work. The article antiquarian deals with how the profession has changed during the centuries. As to the Swedish PD releases there is the problem that if someone scanned a PD painting and published it after 1969, the particular scan is not free for use on Swedish Wikipedia. This has led some people to want to delete (from the Commons) what might be used on Swedish WP, and the Swedish PD tags are there to remind that the images are free whatever PD concerns that might possibly be raised.--Berig (talk) 20:32, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

PS, the article on Johan Peringskiöld explicity says that the elder made drawings of runestones, so I don't think we are missing information in that article.--Berig (talk) 12:04, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation. I must have missed that in the JP article - sorry! Awadewit (talk) 01:52, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your help!--Berig (talk) 17:07, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

• Support. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 22:09, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

• There's an incorrect {{main}} template at the top of the article (see WP:LAYOUT and the instructions on the template), I left edit summaries of MoS fixes needed, and I contacted User:Brighterorange to run his script to correct the faulty endashes in the citations. (I don't know where to categorize this article at WP:FA if it passes.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:03, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for you help. I have followed your edit summaries and hope that it is more satisfactory according to MoS now. If the article should pass, runology and runestones fall under linguistics at universities.--Berig (talk) 12:41, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

• I think Berig has done some great work here, not least taking so many photographs! As for classifying the article, I think "Art, architecture and archaeology" might be the most appropriate group. Haukur (talk) 13:10, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

  Yeah, great article. I'm slowly going through it.Manhattan Samurai (talk) 13:30, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

• Support. Excellent work, Berig. The runestone photographs you've taken are extremely helpful, and prior to your great effort, were scantly found on the internet. I applaud the time and effort you've put forth into this; hunting these stones must have been great fun! I've gone through and done some minor prose adjustments and a little formatting. :bloodofox: (talk) 14:18, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

• Support. The article looks really interesting and well made. Ukabia (talk) 16:26, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

• Support. Excellent article, it manages to present such an inaccessible topic in a very easily comprehensible way. I second Bloodofox' comment on the runestone images, you have clearly devoted yourself to that hunt! –Holt T•C 10:59, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

---

Queries/Comments of --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 14:40, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

• In which language are the inscriptions in? If i interpret it right, in Old Norse. So why is the Latin transliteration included? Not much use for an English encyclopaedia reader. Even the Old Norse transcription can be put in some "Notes" like section. I just ignored 2 lines 30 times, as i can't understand them and how many readers will be able to read them?
• I was a little perplexed by the notations U 73, Sö 165, Ög 81. Can they be explained better?
• I came across Runestones of Högby, which has 3 runestones described (photos of all 3 by Berig, I must say Berig did a great job with the photos), Greece Runestones describes only one, namely Ög 81. 82, 83 are ignored. Can you please explain? --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 14:40, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

As is explained in the intro, the language is the Old Norse dialect of Denmark and Sweden (or Old East Norse). Informative articles on runestones usually provide both transliteration, transcription and translation of the inscriptions, and Rundata even provides transcriptions into both Old East Norse and Old West Norse (the Norwegian and Icelandic dialect). The annotations are the names that runestones virtually always have in scholarly literature, so if you read about runes and runestones, the inscriptions are usually named U 73, Sö 165, Ög 81, and so on. The first letter represents the province (U=Uppland) and the number represents the order in which they were documented together. This is scholarly practice. As for the Högby runestones, a great many runestones appear in groups, but they often do not tell a coherent story together as they may have been raised at different times and for different purposes, and among the Högby runestones, only Ög 81 tells about a person who went to Greece. Consequently, Ög 82 and Ög 83 are a bit off-topic in an article on the Greece runestones.--Berig (talk) 15:45, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Please add the info about the info about the notations somewhere in the article or a footnote. I still would prefer the non-English lines to be in footnotes, not much useful to a general English-understanding person. Haven't read the article in detail. Will surely do that tomorrow. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 17:00, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

I will add some info about the notations in a footnote as you suggest. I think that the non-English lines are useful since they provide an easily verifiable way for readers to compare the pictures of the runestones with the translation into English thanks to the resource which is linked on the bottom of the page. Just check out words from the Old Norse transcription of any runestone with this tool, and you can verify the translations, and see that the particular runestone is listed with the notation system. Moreover, they don't take much space.--Berig (talk) 18:16, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

• All images are right-aligned. WP:MOS reads:
  • "Start an article with a right-aligned lead image or InfoBox."
  • "Multiple images in the same article can be staggered right-and-left"
• WP:weasel words: add reference and/or name of person who considers.
  • "Búi's location of death is not given, but it was probably in a way which was not considered as glorious as those of his brothers.[109]"
  • "the ornamention is considered unusual"
  • "The personal name that is considered most interesting by scholars is Ormika" exactly who?
• References needed:
  • Numerical data like "measures 2 m (6.6 ft) in height and 1.2 m (3.9 ft) in width," needs inline citations. Applicable to every section.
  • "Öpir, the most popular and productive of the old runemasters": point of view
• "The stone (U73) shares the same message as U 72 together with which it once formed a monument" So U 72 discusses Greece too?
• Please correct the links "refined Urnes (Pr5) style" etc. The organization of the article linked has changed since ;links aere first added. Have changed one, please check it, if correct.
• Overlink: "unorthodox use of the haglaz rune (ᚼ), as in hut for Old Norse út ("out")." 2 words in the sentence link to the same article. Please remove one.
• Sentence as above and "as in Ragnvaldr": Why is hut and g bolded? May be italics will be better alternative. ?
• Prose: Long sentences, which may be split as the reader may lose track of the beginning.
  • "These two brothers then raised the two memorials in honour of their nephews, which was probably due to the nephews having distinguished themselves in the South, but it may have also been in gratitude for wealth gathered by the nephews overseas." ---> for e.g. "These two brothers then raised the two memorials in honour of their nephews, which was probably due to the nephews having distinguished themselves in the South. However it may have also been in gratitude for wealth gathered by the nephews overseas." OR something like that. Can be done in better way when what i have written.
  • "Very few could boast of returning home with the honour of having been the captain of the Varangian Guard, and the name Ragnvaldr shows that he belonged to the higher echelons of Old Norse society, and that he may have been a relative of the ruling dynasty."
  • "Runestone U 328 relates that Ragnvaldr had two aunts, Gyríðr and Guðlaug, and runestone U 336 adds that Ulf of Borresta, who received three Danegelds in England, was Ónæm's paternal nephew and thus Ragnvald's first cousin."
• <br clear=both> are causing neccessary spaces.--Redtigerxyz ^Talk 05:33, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
• British English and American English spellings like "grey" and "gray" used together in the article. Stick to one: British or American --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 05:42, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

I have tried to stagger the images, but doing so only messes up the look of the individual sections. However, MoS only says that they "can" be staggered, not that they "should" or "must", so it does not appear to be necessary. U 72 does not mention Greece, it says "Gerðarr and Jôrundr have raised these stones in memory of their sister's sons Ernmundr and Ingimundr", which was intended to complement that of U 73, which is why they "share the same message". hut needs to be bolded per academic convention as it represents the runemaster's use of runes, and not the transliteration into Old Norse which would be ut or út. I'll remove the bolded g in the name Ragnvaldr since it was only intended to help the reader see what phoneme in the name that was pronounced in a special way. Otherwise, I hope that I have changed according to your suggestions. Please inform me if I have missed anything.--Berig (talk) 20:57, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

• Missing dimensions in "U 140", U 518, U 1087 ("an unusually large and imposing runestone" is a view, numerical data is more precise) etc. Please search for more if any. Checked til U 1087 --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 05:07, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

I have added all the dimensions given in the official publication Sveriges runinskrifter.--Berig (talk) 20:02, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

• Missing date for ref: (Swedish) Nordisk runnamnslexikon by Lena Peterson at the Swedish Institute for Linguistics and Heritage (Institutet för språk och folkminnen). --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 05:10, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Done!--Berig (talk) 20:04, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

---

Comment

• File:Greece runestones.JPG; it would be nice to have an SVG version of this with actual place names on it; reading the article i was a tad confused about where the heck these stones are supposed to be. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 18:26, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

I doubt that such a map would be feasible considering the great concentration of runestones just north-west of modern Stockholm. The exact location of every runestone is easy to find thanks to Rundata 2.5.Download here.--Berig (talk) 18:35, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm not talking about marking every single location, but you've got an entirely blank map with dots; frankly, that reduces the usefulness of the map to absolutely jack. As for Rundata, I don't have a PC and this article should be able to stand on its own. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 19:08, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

I have added links to maps as provided by Rundata 2.5. I hope you think that the article stands more on its own now.--Berig (talk) 20:10, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Would something like {{Earth Labelled Map}} be an idea? Maps like that are incredibly userfriendly and informative. If it's worth the trouble, it'd be ideal. –Holt T•C 11:15, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

I doubt that it would be possible to make such a map work, considering the concentrations of stones you can see near Stockholm.--Berig (talk) 16:31, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

[outdent] Just noting that this issue is fixed now, thanks to Lokal Profil (talk · contribs). Clickable svg map with proper labels, couldn't ask for more! –Holt (T•C) 16:13, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, and thanks to you who asked him :).--Berig (talk) 16:24, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

• Comment I agree with Redtigerxyz above in that some explanation of the coding is needed for flow (though clearly not too hard to figure out). I would remove the mention of U112 from the lead s it is meaningless until the coding is noted. I'd put a short section called nomenclature or naming below the lead, explaining in 1-3 sentences what the letters and numbers are for, and who actually came up with the classification. This then helps explain the rest of the article. Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:33, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Done!--Berig (talk) 21:20, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Good work. One more thing, a sentence at the beginning of that section stating who came up with the original catalogue for all the IDs and when? I note mention of national searches, was that when the bulk of them were found? That would be good to note as well as a one-liner here.

Thanks! I doubt that it think it is possible to find a reference for someone who came up with the IDs as they were the result of many scholars working together to produce catalogues since the 17th c. The custom derives from the runological tradition of just referring to the publication where scholars could read about the stones. In other words, the modern IDs replaced earlier IDs like B 123, where B stood for an 18th c. catalogue named Bautil and the number represented its order in it, or L 123, where L represented a catalogue by a 19th c. scholar named Liljegren. Consequently, when Söderberg and Brate produced the first tome of the official Sveriges runinskrifter, which is named Ölands runinskrifter (1900-1906), it must have been inevitable to continue the convention by simply referring to the Karlevi Runestone as Öl(ands runinskrifter) 1, since it is the first stone listed in the tome.--Berig (talk) 16:25, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Also, I recall with Stonehenge much discussion on where stones were quarried and transported etc. Were all the stones local? It might be good to note something about common elements of their construction in a construction section (?) (not sure if enough is known (?)) - eg local, what is known about tools etc. all different/similar etc. Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:26, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks to the transportation of loose stones by the great ice cap of the Ice Age, Sweden is incredibly richly endowed with glacial erratics of every possible size - and origin, and so the stones are presumably made from material available locally (it would anyway be impossible to prove any transportation of stones the way they can do in southern England). Often they simply engraved the inscriptions on boulders that they couldn't move, or on flat bedrock. As for the actual procedure of making the runestones, I think the best place for it is in the articles runestone and runemaster.--Berig (talk) 16:25, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

• Support Comments I hate to say it, but my first thought on skimming this was that it's more of a list than an article. You have a lead and then a long list of items. They have more depth than some lists, but there is no prose flow and typical article organization. I'd like to toss the idea out there that this should be a Featured List Candidate, not an FAC.
  • "Contrary to the popular stereotype of Viking warriors, the individuals who served in the Varangian Guard were not uncouth ruffians ..." This sentence is much too long in the lead. Please break up.
  • "The first part is a letter that represents the area where the runic inscription appears ..." You go on to give examples that are more than one letter.
  • "If the inscription was documented later than the official publication, it is listed according to the publication where it was first described, e.g. Fv1958;252, which stands for Fornvännen, year 1958, p. 252." This doesn't make sense to me. Is Fornvännen the publication, then? The place? Why do you use an example that doesn't appear in the article? If Fornvännen is the city, the where is the page 252?
  • Just out of curiosity, is there a reason we don't provide the depth (thickness) measurement of the stones? Is it because they are all of a nominal depth?

--Laser brain (talk) 04:04, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

• • • I have tried to fix the points you indicated. If there is anything I have missed, please tell me. As for the thickness of the stones, it did not seem that relevant. We are for instance not showing images of the runestones from the side.--Berig (talk) 20:03, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
      • What about my comment that this is more a list than an article? --Laser brain (talk) 18:01, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
        • I actually thought of it before nominating, but I think the sections are much too full and informative for this article to qualify as a "list". Moreover, you probably wouldn't call a paper encyclopedia, or a tome of Sveriges runinskrifter, "lists" while the topics are presented in the same way as they are here.--Berig (talk) 18:07, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
          • Hm, I see your point and agree. Thanks for your hard work. I switched to support above. --Laser brain (talk) 22:20, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
            • Thanks :)--Berig (talk) 16:02, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
• Comment - All Swedish? Not one English source? I feel as if I should oppose based on comprehensiveness because there really should be something in English on the topic. Runes are an important study focus and this would definitely have something. Ottava Rima (talk) 04:42, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Well, more accurately, you could oppose on verifiability. "Because this is the English Wikipedia, for the convenience of our readers, editors should use English-language sources in preference to sources in other languages, assuming the availability of an English-language source of equal quality, so that readers can easily verify that the source material has been used correctly." However, I seriously doubt there are authoritative English-language sources for this topic. --Laser brain (talk) 05:57, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
    • I'm not opposing because my views are normally seen as controversial and I would rather not deal with it. However, I believe that there are many more English sources out there that are not mentioned. I have studied the history of the English language in multiple graduate classes. I have seen a lot of information that talks about runes. There are not that many, so these would have to come up a lot. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:25, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
      • There are more than 6,500 runic inscriptions in Scandinavia alone, and this article concerns a tiny minority of 30 runestones. If you want to find detailed information about individual runestones such as these, you are restricted to scholarly works in Norwegian, Danish and Swedish.--Berig (talk) 19:49, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
        • I find that comment to be utterly absurd. Sorry, but I do. As I stated above, this is a major pursuit in those who focus on Indo European languages, which is a large portion of Linguistics. I know many people, Swedish, Hungarian, Romanian, Russian, etc, who focus on runes and who publish primarily in English even though its not their native language. There are also many conferences that take place in English. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:54, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
          • Can you please indicate *any* English language source that discusses one of these 30 runic inscriptions in detail, with history of discovery and dimensions?--Berig (talk) 16:19, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

• Support - There was an introduction of multiple English sources and an inclusion of extra background information that provides a more complete understanding that the original lacked. I definitely think that the page improved from the additional content and can be considered complete. Ottava Rima (talk) 12:31, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose - comprehensiveness. First result in google books: The Varangians of Byzantium. An English work done by non-native English speaker and -translated-. Proof that there are English sources that can be used. Some links so that the writers can go back and have a start in reworking in English sources and making this page comprehensive: 1 and 2. Furthermore, "Greece" Runestones? I don't buy it as a term. Most hits would place "runestones" without capitalization, and many more separate rune from stone. This needs to be reworked with the large amount of English works with official English titles. There are plenty out there. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:02, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

  Note - "U 431" was pictured in one of my old linguistic texts. That's what tipped me off to this page being fundamentally flawed. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:04, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

  The major problem with your oppose is that you link to these 1 and 2 searches as indicating any major literature on these stones in English. There is not a single source that you have found that treats any runestone in detail, as they mention these stones in passing, as examples of particular words and voyages, and they can only be used as token references. As for your objections to the name, there is no conventional term for them in English, like there is in Swedish (Greklandsstenar). If you are serious with your oppose you should provide sources that can compare with the Swedish ones, and not just pretend that they exist.--Berig (talk) 16:19, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm afraid Berig is right. As far as I understand, there is no comprehensive work that approaches this subject in the English language. You might find a picture here and there or an odd article about a specific runestone that has been newly discovered somewhere or about a particular inscription, but that's about the extent of it at this point. Runestones in general are poorly represented in English language texts. :bloodofox: (talk) 19:03, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

As stated, there are no in-depth studies we know of that treat any parts of this particular subject. The name Greece Runestones is a fully functional and correct translation of the Swedish term, which naturally has not appeared in English yet, as there is no English literature on it. –Holt T•C 20:02, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Correct translation according to whom? Ottava Rima (talk) 23:04, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

It is an "incorrect" translation according to whom, Ottava Rima? Holt is a Scandinavian and in a good position to judge the correctness of the translation. If you want to change the name it is up to you to show reliable and verifiable sources for a "correct" and established English translation of Swedish Greklandsstenar other than the one that is used here.--Berig (talk) 16:02, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Even the stone that is at Oxford (U 104) is cited to Swedish sources. It is at the Ashmolean Museum . Nothing can be found in English? I highly doubt that. Ottava Rima (talk) 23:04, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Then it should be no problem for you to provide a good English secondary source on the runestone (if such sources exist as you assert). You can't just assert things without providing any support for your views.--Berig (talk) 16:02, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

This isn't a peer review. This is a FAC. I am not going to do all of your research for you because you refused to go down to a library and find appropriate English Sources. What it looks like is that you simply translated from the Swedish page and refused to do any work beyond that. That is not FAC quality and is definitely not appropriate. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:59, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

So you admit that you do not know of any secondary sources in English. Moreover, I'd be very interested in seeing that Swedish page, you claim that it looks like I have translated. Your oppose has nothing behind it and is very inappropriate for a FAC.--Berig (talk) 19:06, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Admit what? There are thousands of books on Runes at the Library of Congress. What do you want me to do, march down there and start giving you titles? The simple fact that you tried to claim that there aren't any sources in English is utterly absurd. You can't hide it by trying to claim that -I- have to do something. Your reluctance to even investigate for English sources to begin with shows that you shouldn't have brought this to FAC. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:11, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

As I pointed out and that you ignored - one of the rune-stones is at an English museum, and yet you failed to get any English sources on that. Don't try to claim that there aren't any. All museums have records of their holdings. At the bare minimum, there would be an entry listing of the records. Yet, nothing in the article. That only verifies that you haven't done any appropriate research. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:13, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Your intent is clearly disruptive. You post an oppose falsely claiming that the article excludes an amount of imaginary literature, and since you can't provide any evidence for this non existent literature you refuse to accept any responsibility to prove that you are honest. Anyone can pretend that there are unicorns and shift the burden of evidence on those that disagree.--Berig (talk) 19:17, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Whoa there. If you want to note something as uncited or inaccurate, you are welcome to post it, but you have yet to show any evidence for your claims. Furtheremore, are you seriously calling Berig lazy? Did you happen to notice that all of the photographs on that article were taken by Berig, that he's been working on this specific article regularly for months, and the he has addressed every concern brought up to him about it? I've always found Berig to be a perfectly reasonable editor here, even when we've disagreed. As I've pointed out before, it has been my experience that you're not going to find a definitive work on these works in English and, once more, you may find a paper about a specific stones or a few specific stones here and there (such as the case you've brought up), but beyond this English works on the subject are lacking. If you can come up with a definitive work covering the subject matter of Greece Runestones in English, I'd be happy to read it myself. :bloodofox: (talk) 19:21, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Outdent - disruptive? No evidence? Bloodofox and Berig, stop it right now. You have yet to answer why one of these was given to an English Monarch, is in an English Museum, and how there is not one -English- source on this item. English Museums document important pieces. English linguists discuss Runes. The simple fact is that there are sources out there. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:32, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

There are many English language works on runes. However secondary literature on Swedish runestones in English is something that no one here but you has ever heard about, apparently. Too bad you refuse to cooperate and share any references with the rest of us (if such references actually exist).--Berig (talk) 20:41, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Case in point this. Now I expect an apology for not only be dragged in the mud, but actually trying to hide from simple research. As I listed before, this was one of the books on the google hits. Everyone can see it and find it. There are plenty more out there. Do the right thing, withdraw this FA and come back when you have finished your research. Furthermore, as the source points out, your translation was horrible sloppy and needs to be re-evaluated by proper sources. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:44, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Another tertiary source which adds nothing that is not already provided in a more updated form by Rundata in English. You're gripping at straws, and you do not appear to be familiar with the difference between secondary and tertiary sources.--Berig (talk) 20:46, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

I was just about to write the same thing. A tertiary source with little to add. If you look at his references, all the works are Swedish, and they are exactly the same works that Berig has used in this article. This Sigfús Blöndal, probably a good scholar, has not been able to come up with English works with original research. This is evidence pointing in this article's direction. –Holt T•C 20:57, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Stop with the damn copy editing. It makes it impossible to respond. You have been proven wrong by one simple hit, and it is from a whole book that devotes a large portion to these stones. One book from the first page of the google books hit. That proves that there are plenty out there that even a cursory glance would have discovered some. So, insult away, but this FAC is not even close to being comprehensive, let alone does it fall under Verifiability because it is based on translations that are provingly incorrect. You got the inscriptions wrong according to the source which goes into detail about the whole set of stones and provides legitimate translations for them. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:52, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Again, that is a tertiary source which is outdated compared to Rundata (2008) if they disagree on translation into English. You simply refuse to aknowledge that there are no secondary sources on these runestones in English.--Berig (talk) 20:54, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

14 pages cataloging runes, providing context, and providing actual translation is more than what you have produced for most of them, especially when it puts into doubt your translations. Furthermore, user based translations need to be marked properly, which yours have not. Also, on the Museum stone (thats the only one I'm focusing on now, since it is so easy to find sources): this. It discusses the stone, how it got the stone, etc. So far, two big sources that contradict what you say now and in the article. Need I continue or will you apologize and withdraw already? So far, you are just wasting everyone's time. It is taking me mere seconds to find sources. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:00, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Yet another, p. 361 of this about the presenter of it and how the process happened for it reaching the Museum. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:03, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Another, U540 here. All it really requires is to type in runestone and the stone. Amazing how many hits come up, and google doesn't even have nearly 10% of books online, let alone journals and the rest. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:12, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Note, that beauty right there has most of the Upplandic Runes. But guess what, its a journal devoted to it, in English! Why? Because its a major field within Linguistics and English speakers pursue it. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:15, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

[outdent] Due to the low level of accessibility these books and journals have on Google Books, I have not been able to read the whole context, and cannot make a tenable statement on the links you have provided. To quote WP:V again, English sources should be used in preference to sources in other languages, assuming the availability of an English-language source of equal quality. This is not the case here, from what I can tell. The best original research that has been carried out on Swedish runestones, is by the Swedes themselves. Tertiary sources are not of equal equality to the Swedish, secondary sources. What do you wish to prove/achieve? –Holt T•C 22:06, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Please understand that the term "preference" means replacing. No one has stated that these need to be replaced completely. The argument is that this page fails under the requirement that it reflects academic opinion. Ignoring the English interpretations and uses does just that. There is a whole journal devoted to one region listed. And you can use the term "Tertiary" all you want. The state of the article makes it blatant that every source used is tertiary, hence why there is almost no actual information listed on each Runestone. Ottava Rima (talk) 22:22, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Also, I believe you need to reread the definition for "tertiary". A book that discusses the stones as part of the whole cultural phenomenon is not a tertiary source. A journal devoted to the region's runestones is not a tertiary source. A source that forms the Museums catalog and the stone exists at that Museum is not a tertiary source. So, throwing around misapplied ords to try and dismiss a source doesn't actually work. Ottava Rima (talk) 22:25, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

I will probably return to this soon enough, but I'd like to take a break to let the discussion rest a bit, like the others seem to have done. I believe we have met a dead end. If you wish to continue criticizing the article, I think you ought to write a list of the concrete issues you have encountered, so that others may get a decent overview of what you really are opposing. –Holt T•C 22:50, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

As I stated before, there is no way this article meets comprehensiveness. There is barely any information as is, and there are very few uses of English sources. The one source about the museum alone would add a few more lines. Ottava Rima (talk) 23:24, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Why is Sawyer, B. (2000). The Viking-Age Rune-Stones (first name is Birgit, by the way) listed but not cited? This is a large collection and catalog of each of the runes with all of their important data plus background information. When I was looking through the English sources, I figured that you had this and thus had some, but you don't use this. I picked up a copy of it, and it is a standard within teaching Runes in the US. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:00, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

I cited it previously in the article since it contains some general information about voyages on runestones. However, I had to trim down the lead[2]. Otherwise people would have opposed the article for having too long a lead. Since you have the book in front of you, you can see that the book deals with social life as evidenced on runestones and that it contains precious little on the Greece runestones. Please show us what important information I have left out that relate specifically to these stones.--Berig (talk) 17:37, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

PS, for some reason you call Sawyer's book a "catalogue of each of the Runes"[3]. Since I have read the book and it is nothing like a catalogue of runes, could you please explain what you mean? Maybe you are confusing "runes" with "runestones", but it is not a catalogues of runestones either, unless you are talking of the lists in the appendix.--Berig (talk) 17:51, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Its appendix is part of the book that collects a large list of pieces. That is a catalog. If you want, I can put together over 10 sentences to add in just three listings from the sources that I have posted here. Now, as anyone can see this book contains a lot of important background information. You don't explain in the article how the stones are a source for linguistic evidence. You don't explain how they are a source of customs. You go very little into the background of why these stones are even important. As of right now, this is merely a dignified list page. You can fix that by using books like Sawyer's and the Varangians book listed above to flesh out the importance of these stones.

Example of information that should be added: p. 20 "The wider context is suggested by the fact that only certain individuals, mostly men, are honoured, and that the emphasis is put on the sponsers.... Only eight of the (more or less complete) inscriptions lack a commemoration formula, but four of them are parts of double monuments and the formula is found ont he other stone. Two others (U 29 and 73) will be discussed in Chapter 5.6. It is obvious that the relationship between sponsers and the dead weree significant in determining who commemorated whom. A systematic study of all relationships has revealed patterns with distinct differences between regions that cannot be explained as due to chance; there must have been rules, principles, or customs determining who should commemorate the dead in this monumental way, and they were not the same throughout"

This is just information on one stone. There is no equivalent of this vital context within the article on the stone. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:14, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Also, pp. 114-115: "In Spanga parish we meet another Inga who had inhereited from her sons (U 72 and 73). After her death her brothers, Gardar and Jorund, inherited from her, and - as in Gerlog's case - we can only speculate what happened to the inheritance after that. We can be fairly certain that Gerlog did not leave any heirs, and it is at least likely that neither Gardar nor Jorund did so either. Since both inscriptions describing those inheritance cases (29 and 73) are among the very fw that do not state who sponsored them, it may well be that in these cases there was no claimant other than the Church, which then took responsibility for the commemorations." Ottava Rima (talk) 19:18, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

The only Greece runestones that you can find any information on in Sawyer's book are U 73 and U 136, since they concern what Sawyer is interested in. However, I think it is a bit off-topic to add Sawyer's theories on the runestone tradition, since it would bloat an already large article, and such information properly belongs in the article runestone. I still don't understand how you can call Sawyer's book a "catalogue", which it definitely is *not*, as anyone can see in its list of contents[4].--Berig (talk) 13:51, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Bloat? No. This is an incomplete article on a large topic. Adding ten more sentences from Swayer would not bloat it. Adding two more sentences from each of the other sources will not bloat it. You have nothing on the themes and images that connect them, let alone the major tradition. you have stones, a base examination of what they say, and a tiny history. You even only have 129 footnotes. There are much larger and better footnoted articles out there, so don't mention bloating when it comes to an oppose that says that this is not fully comprehensive. You have two books that talk about some of the runes that need to be added. You have a journal that is devoted to all of the U runes that should be examined. You have information on a museum piece that should be discussed. You really should think about adding in some of the required information instead of responding that you can't. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:30, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

There are 3 000 runestones in Scandinavia, of which these runestones constitute 1 %, and there are more than 200 runestones that mentions voyages. The only thing that makes these stones a special topic is the fact that they mention Greece and can be connected to the Varangian Guard. There is nothing else that these stones share that they do not have in common with other runestones. Writing on traditions, "themes and images" is preposterous when these things do not set the Greece runestones from other stones, and are much more appropriately covered in generic articles like runestone and runestone styles. If you want to continue old habits in this discussion and also be the only one to oppose this article, be my guest. I don't think we will get any further in this discussion. Cheers!--Berig (talk) 17:54, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Berig, now you are being completely incivil. You have failed to address the topic at hand. You were given multiple sources and failed to meet it. This oppose is over a fundamental requirement and can be used to deny the whole page as an FA. I produced two books that heavily deal with these stones and with the Varangians. I produced a whole journal devoted to the one region's stones which have articles talking about many of the stones listed. I have produced articles about the museum piece. What is your response? Attacks, deflections, and claiming that there is no information. You are disrupting your own FAC by refusing to fix the blatant error. Why? Do you have no respect for this process at all? You obviously have no respect for me with your personal attacks. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:05, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

It is very difficult to address your objections, Ottava, when they are riddled with factual errors and show a hasty and poor judgment of the topic and sources that appears to be made ad hoc. You call Sawyer's book a "a large collection and catalog of each of the runes with all of their important data plus background information"[5], which is as preposterous as calling a book on medieval manuscripts, a "catalogue of Latin characters", and I hope you understand that people are prone to seriously question your seriousness or honesty when they check out the book's list of contents[6]. You pretend that the two books you refer to "heavily deal with these stones", when Sawyer's book only mentions two of them, and Varangians and Byzantium is a tertiary source that is not specialist literature on these stones, although I agree that it is a useful book. It is difficult for me to find anything that should be worth objecting for in what you write. It is your behaviour here that caused me to check out your block log, which shows that I am far from the only one to have had this kind of discussion with you Ottava. I don't think we get any further in this discussion. Sorry!--Berig (talk) 10:10, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Outdent - Berig, your response does little for you. You attack my use of the term "catalog", when it is clear that the source has a large list of various stones, goes through and analyzes commonalities, and address a lot of points that are not included in the article. Yes, a lot of points are not included in the article. Comprehensiveness means that nothing major is left out. Talking about the classification type of the stones and other linguistic features found in the various sources that I have point out is a major gap. And you can say they are "tertiary" all you want. It does not make them so. Instead, your response makes it seem like you are unwilling to actually do research, which completely undermines any credibility you have at this FAC. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:52, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

The headache comes when we discuss sourcing if all the Secondary sources are Swedish and the English language ones are all tertiary. I consider myslef fairly well read and I had never in my life heard of these stones before (ever!). Which I was impressed by. I don't have a problem with using swedish only - this is an unusual case. Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:10, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

• Support - But File:Greece runestones.JPG does need some context. Maybe just the name of the waters, name of one of the islands, or one current major city, but at least something. Garion96 (talk) 23:01, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

That is a very good suggestion. Thanks!--Berig (talk) 10:10, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

I have now uploaded a new version according to your suggestions.--Berig (talk) 10:25, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Oppose (for the moment)_{(see below for my updated opinion) Jakob.scholbach (talk) 12:09, 10 February 2009 (UTC)}: I have to say I'm not a connoisseur in this area, but I do have a number of problems with this article:

• 1. the lead does not at all summarize the article content! This is absolutely crucial for being even a good article (see WP:LEAD for the guideline). Jakob.scholbach (talk) 12:15, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
  • I have summarized to the best of my ability. If you have any suggestions for how to do it in a better way, I'd be most grateful.--Berig (talk) 12:25, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

• Well, as an easy rule of thumb, every (shorter) section (or subsection) in the body should be summarized by one sentence in the lead. Vice versa, a paragraph in the lead should correspond to a (longer) section. From what I can see, the second paragraph in the lead is not at all covered by the main body. You could consider moving this to a sort of "Introduction" section. This would shrink down the lead by about 50%, which gives you the space you need to cover the content of the article. Jakob.scholbach (talk) 12:41, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

OK, now you moved that paragraph as an extra section, which I think is better. The rest of the article still has to be summarized. WP:LEAD puts it very nicely: "The lead section should briefly summarize the most important points covered in an article in such a way that it can stand on its own as a concise version of the article." (emph. added). Jakob.scholbach (talk) 20:41, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

I have made a new try.--Berig (talk) 15:30, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

• 2. the language, especially in the lead, is not encyclopedic: "the Guard represented an irresistible attraction to young, adventurous Scandinavians" (emphasis added) and further similar phrases sound a bit like a fairy tale. Jakob.scholbach (talk) 12:15, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
  • I have tried to address this now.--Berig (talk) 12:25, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

OK, you did this one. Others remain, e.g. "to enjoy their increased wealth and social status" sounds a bit enthusiastic. Jakob.scholbach (talk) 20:41, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

This has been removed now.--Berig (talk) 15:30, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

• 3. the very first image would be better if it mentions that we are seeing Sweden. Otherwise it may be hard to read. Even better would be to draw the regions mentioned later in the text. Jakob.scholbach (talk) 12:15, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

OK, I see you have already added some better known locations. They are (IMO) too small to be easily readable in the thumbnail view. Jakob.scholbach (talk) 12:21, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

• • I have added to the caption that the map shows southern Sweden.--Berig (talk) 12:25, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
• 4. Why is it that practically no english source appears? The titles Swedish sources should be translated. Also Rundata 2.5 for Windows is overlinked (in the footnotes). The external link lacks an accessdate. Jakob.scholbach (talk) 12:41, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
  • There is virtually no secondary literature on these runestones in English. You can find them mentioned in some English secondary literature, such as Jesch's Ships and Men in the Late Viking Age: The Vocabulary of Runic Inscriptions and Skaldic Verse, but they don't specialize on these runestones and only mention them superficially.--Berig (talk) 13:19, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
    • This claim has been exploded in the above discussion. There is a journal devoted to just the one type of stones, two books that, if used, would double the size of two of the stones, background information on another stone, which means at least three (discounting the journal) sections could be double their current size with new information that is lacking. That is a lot. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:52, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
• 5. The article seems to lack good global structure. Actually, it could be a candidate for Featured List instead? From what I can tell, a section summarizing the common features of the stones would be good (or necessary), answering questions such as: When have the stones been built/erected? Who coined the term "Greece Runestones"? Are there other runestones from a similar period, but unrelated to Greece? (The navbox at the top makes me think so). In other words, more context should be provided. When have they first been studied/described in scholarly literature? What, in addition to all of them being related to "Greece", makes them one entity, so that a common name (and a common WP article) is justified? Jakob.scholbach (talk) 12:41, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
  • This is a category of runestones, and not a special topic in runology. They don't have an established name in English, but they are called Greklandsstenar in Swedish of which Greece Runestones is a reasonable translation, IMO. The only thing that sets these stones appart from other runestones is the fact that they mention Greece, and so IMO the things you ask for are more properly treated in the article runestone.--Berig (talk) 13:22, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, the fact that there is a parent article on runestones does not exempt you from the duty to give the context of your topic w.r.t. more general topics or related topics. The information you just provided above would be good to tell in the article. Jakob.scholbach (talk) 20:41, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

• • As for my not considering it a list I have answered the question above, but I'll repeat it here for convenience: I actually thought of it before nominating, but I think the sections are much too full and informative for this article to qualify as a "list". Moreover, you probably wouldn't call a paper encyclopedia, or a tome of Sveriges runinskrifter, "lists" while the topics are presented in the same way as they are here.--Berig (talk) 13:47, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, it is a bit at the border between article and list. See below for a suggestion. Jakob.scholbach (talk) 20:41, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

• What do the signs "×" etc in the latin transliteration mean? Why are they boldface and the Norsk transcription italic (neither should be highlighted, according to MoS). Also uncommon letters like þ should be explained, perhaps in a footnote. Jakob.scholbach (talk) 12:41, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
  • • • According to scholarly convention, transliterations of runes into Latin letters are to be in bold, while the transcription into a normalized Old Norse are to be in italics. Surely, WP should respect such conventions. As for the x sign it represents a dividing marker in runic inscriptions, but it can also look like a *. I don't think it is actionable to make Greece Runestones into an extensive discussion on runic transliteration and transcription for which there is already an article.--Berig (talk) 17:00, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
      • I have added a line that should help with the queries you have.--Berig (talk) 13:22, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Hm, I still don't find it particularly enlightening. I was thinking of having a brief section à la "[Most of] The stones use the dialect of ... The meaning of ×, þ is the following: ... " Try to write an inviting, yet brief overview of what is needed to appreciate/understand the sequel! Pointing to Runic transliteration and transcription and Runestone styles is not doing the job, mainly since the article should make an effort of being reasonably self-contained, and also since the two articles are not terribly helpful (they don't mention the x signs, for example). Jakob.scholbach (talk) 20:41, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

I have added a section on this now. I hope that the present version is more helpful.--Berig (talk) 15:30, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

• • • Thanks Jakob, for your comments. This article has been listed here for almost a month, and finally a person arrives to convince me that this topic cannot possibly become the subject an FA. I have asked SandyGeorgia to delist it[7]. Thanks, again!--Berig (talk) 12:54, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

You're welcome. I'm not sure it is impossible to make it an FA. Many of my concerns above are amenable in an article but it would require a fair amount of additional effort, I guess. However, I also think doing that in short time may be too much, so delisting seems the best plan. Good luck with the topic... Jakob.scholbach (talk) 13:02, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

SandyGeorgia says that there's a good level of support for the article being an FA, so maybe I should make a try. Although I'm not sure whether I'll be able to satisfy your terms enough for you to support the article, I'll try to amend what I think is actionable.--Berig (talk) 13:12, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Jakob makes some good points. This can be an FA and will need some tweaking. Don't be afraid to withdraw, rejig and renom, or maybe have a go now. Much of the lead is actually background expalnation which should be a section called Purpose or something (not a general Introducion or Overview section as it is quite specific - the reasons teh stones were built. This is very doable, but it is late here and I need to sleep. I am juggling too much but may have a look tomorrow. Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:22, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your kind words. Any help at improving the article will be most welcome :).--Berig (talk) 13:34, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

• To what extent did you use the website nationmaster.com for writing this article? That page is incredibly close, both in terms of article structure and content. There are differences, but I'm led to believe that the WP article is a derivation of the said website and not the other way round. For example "Most of the men for whom the stones were raised died there, but some returned with riches" (nationmaster) and "However, some runestones tell of men who returned to enjoy their increased wealth and social status" (WP). It looks like the WP version tried to reword the Nationmaster version. Another example, Berig derived the very first image in the article from this file on meta (by removing some of the irrelevant dots, it seems) and very recently (today) added captions to the image (Oslo, Stockholm etc.). The new version of the file looks exactly the same as the corresponding illustration at the nationmaster article. Unless there is a good explanation that I do not see right now, I believe this article contains a fair amount of copyright infringement. Berig, and others who are writing on the article, please explain. Thanks, Jakob.scholbach (talk) 16:32, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Why do you automatically assume that we have taken any information from Nationmaster, and not the other way round? I'm sorry but I didn't even know that NationMaster existed until now, but apparently it uses content from WP.--Berig (talk) 16:39, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, I got the impression, but I asked you. I also just see that it uses WP content. So, don't worry. Probably they just copied an old version of the WP page. Never mind. Jakob.scholbach (talk) 16:43, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it uses a very early version of the article, from long before it was nominated for GA.--Berig (talk) 16:54, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

I apologize for the previous comment. I should have checked more calmly. However, other issues and ideas come to light when reading more in detail:

• Johannes Bureus is overlinked. Jakob.scholbach (talk) 20:41, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
• After thinking more about it, I would suggest reformatting the article. The current problem is still that the reader will have a hard time telling what the common features are and what makes certain stones particular in certain respects. For example, imagine a reader that is curious about who did scholarly research on the gadgets. The article leaves him/her puzzled, since the information is all over the place. Here is my suggestion for a, as I think better, article structure:

• 1) Lead section (summarizing everything with appropriate weight)
• 2) "Historical background" (brief mention of Varangian guard and generalities on Swedish or Scandinavic warriors abroad or such things)
• 3) "Runological background" (or a more intelligent title) (expound on the language back in 10xy; key notions of runology, in particular explaining the signs showing up later; description of (really only) main facets of the runology styles that you use later; things like "The erratic use of the h-phoneme..." belong here)
• 4) "Research" (start off with Johan Peringskiöld (1654–1720), to finish with the Rundata project; somehow indicate that most or all of the research is done by Swedish people; nomenclature)
• 5) "Description of the stones" (this is the most difficult section, I guess): writing one section about general features of the stones. Try to delineate what is more or less the same with every stone. Try to highlight interdependencies such as the one U 112 and U 328,336. Leave any interesting particular facts about individual stones for following section
• 6) "Particular features of individual stones". Don't be shy about trimming down. IMO, things like "Although the landowner was reported to have been careful when he raised the stone, some pieces were accidentally chipped away and the upper parts of some runes were lost." could do with some trimming. Likewise, "... The next time Djurklou visited the location, he was satisfied to find the stone raised in the cemetery." Also "satisfied" is clearly superfluous.
• 7) A table about minor facts, such as heights, material etc., or even consider putting that into a separate list-style article.

Name	Height, width	Location	Material
U 73	2 m (6.6 ft), 1.2 m (3.9 ft)	Hansta(lund)	...
U 104	...	...	...

Jakob.scholbach (talk) 20:41, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

• Why is the verse on Ög 81 repeated twice? Jakob.scholbach (talk) 20:41, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

  The first time, it shows how the poetry is intended to be read, but I'll remove it since you think it is superfluous.--Berig (talk) 17:53, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

• What does "Danegelds" mean? Jakob.scholbach (talk) 20:41, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

  Protection money paid to Viking chieftains so they would leave England alone. I have linked it now.--Berig (talk) 17:53, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

I striked out some comments of mine which are now addressed. I don't want to insist on a reformat of the whole article (even if I think it would improve the article a lot, make it possible even shorter(!), and more understandable do a broad audience). However, the criticism w.r.t the lead is still not covered adequatly, in my view. Once this issue is resolved, I'm going to change my vote to neutral. Jakob.scholbach (talk) 23:31, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

I have tried to expand the the lead to summarize the entire article without going too much into detail which would explode the size of the lead. I agree that doing as you suggest could make the article shorter, but it would make it look like these stones are unusual in other respects than the fact that they mention Greece. Every runestone is unique, but AFAIK, the Greece Runestones are only a special group by mentioning Greece.--Berig (talk) 15:30, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Nice. I've struck my oppose vote above and change it to neutral. I still think there is space to improve the article, along the lines outlined above; but the article definitely did improve quite a bit in the last weeks, thanks to Berig's concentrated efforts. Jakob.scholbach (talk) 12:09, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! Your suggestions have helped improve the article.--Berig (talk) 13:51, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Oppose—1a. Not there yet in terms of professional-standard prose. Too much redundancy and awkward phrasing. Spot check on a couple paragraphs reveals this:

• "The stone was already in a ruined state when Rogberg depicted it in 1763." What is "it" referring to here?
• "used to be located outside the church of Kölaby in the cemetery"
• "The stone consists of flaking gneiss and it measures 1.85 m (6.1 ft) in height and it is 1.18 m (3.9 ft) wide." "and ... and" is an indicator of too many ideas in one sentence as it is currently phrased.
• "that it was located in the rock fence"
• "It was in the same spot in 1869, when Djurklou visited the stone." The logical order of the sentence is confusing. Try "When Djurklou visited the stone in 1869, it was still in the same spot."
• "Djurklou considered its state to be unhelpful" What does "state" mean here?
• "since a part of the runic band was buried in the soil," "since" is often ambiguous, do you mean "because"?
• "There was only one rune stone in Småland that mentioned Greece. The stone has disappeared, but not before its inscription was recorded by runologists." Source?
• "a statement which is contradicted by later depictions."-->a statement that is contradicted by later depictions.
• "In a traveller's journal made in 1792 by Hilfeling" You don't "make" journals, you write them.
• "it is likely that it was indeed at their time used as a bridge." What does "indeed" add here? The order is off; try "it is likely that it was used as a bridge at their time." It is unclear what "at their time" means (who is "their").
• "In 1822, Liljegren arrived to depict it and a surviving yet unsigned drawing is attributed to him (see illustration)." These ideas seem unrelated, why are they connected by "and"?
• "that the runestone some 40 years earlier "-->that some 40 years earlier, the runestone
• "Someone had at that time decided to remove" Obviously it was at that time
• "However, it was not possible for the runologist to find any remaining runes on what was supposed to be the runestone." Was it really impossible or was he just unsuccessful in his foray? Dabomb87 (talk) 16:08, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

I think some of your objections are a matter of taste, but never mind. I have changed according to your suggestions. If you spot any further cases of poor English, please inform me and I'll take care of it right away.--Berig (talk) 17:54, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

• Support great article about an interesting subject. Meets all FA criteria, I hope it gets featured. I did not find the prose to be a problem and I thought the sources were fine. I liked the structure of the article and I found it very comprehensive with terrific pictures. While I think the article could be improved as per Ottava's and Dabomb87's concerns, I don't think that they should prohibit advancement to FA because at present the article meets FA criteria and these comments could be addressed with minor adjustments afterward. NancyHeise ^talk 22:10, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

After re-reading the article, I agree that while prose needs some polishing, it is not urgent enough to impeded FA status. I struck my oppose. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:24, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

• Comment Shouldn't Scandinavians (in the lead in) be changed to Norsemen since Scandinavians is a disambiguation page. /Lokal_Profil 00:13, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Done!--Berig (talk) 07:59, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

More comments Not going to block its promotion, but I still see some issues.

• "About 3.000 runestones" Use commas, not decimal points, to break the sequence of every three zeros.
• "9,1–10%" And here, use a decimal point (period), not a comma.
• "Several runestones explicity talk of inheritance such as " I don't thing runestones have a voice.
• "The last stone to be found was a stone in Nolinge" The second "stone" is redundant.
• "The older version of the Westrogothic law, which was written down by Eskil Magnusson who was the "-->The older version of the Westrogothic law, which was written down by Eskil Magnusson, the
• "The later version which was written down 1250–1300 adds"-->The later version, which was written down from 1250 to 1300, adds
• "Among the runestones, 9,1–10% report that they were raised in memory of people who went abroad,[13] and the runestones that mention Greece constitute the largest group of them,[14] being only rivalled by those that mention England,[5] and the Ingvar Runestones raised in memory of the Ingvar expedition." A bit long and rambling. Split this up. Dabomb87 (talk) 13:41, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Dabomb87! I have fixed these issues.--Berig (talk) 13:52, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.