Talk:Verein für germanisches Heidentum/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Vaticidalprophet (talk · contribs) 10:39, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

A solid article. I only have a few notes, mostly revolving around improving readability for a non-specialist audience:

• Links to Völkisch movement mostly seem like they should be specifically piped to Völkisch movement#Modern usage in Heathenry for clarity. Similarly, a link to something like Heathenry (new religious movement)#Racial issues might be appreciated from 'universalist' in the lead, for readers who aren't necessarily familiar with the dichotomy or why VfGH rejects it.
  • Done
• Probably worth clarifying that blót ceremonies are sacrificial. Also, is 'reinvented' the ideal word compared to more common choices like 'reconstructed'?
  • Explained blót in the lead. "Reinvention" is used in contrast to "reconstruction" in the source ("Man müsse weniger auf die vergebliche Re-Konstruktion setzen, sondern vielmehr auf die ideenreiche Re-Invention der Religion", "You have to rely less on the vain reconstruction, but rather on the conceptive reinvention of religion"). I added a few words to the article body about why they prefer this approach.
• Consider using the {{lang}} template for German text (such as when writing the full titles of organizations). I see it's used a couple times in the article, but not consistently.
  • Added a bunch, maybe missed something.
• "Dualist" is a little more common a phrasing than "dualistic".
  • Changed
• The meeting was exclusively for "inclusive" Germanic neopagans, which led to discussions about what it means to be inclusive Do we have further details on such discussions?
  • Added a little. It's hard to elaborate more without WP:OR, since the source doesn't discuss the VfGH's position in particular.

I may make further comments, but these are the only clear ones at the moment. Vaticidalprophet 10:39, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

• Thanks for the review! I'll be happy to address any other concerns you have. Ffranc (talk) 11:59, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

  Thanks so much for your prompt replies! I've made some minor copyedits for prose quality (feel free to tweak any further) and spotchecked a few cites (checking through the cited chapters of Norse Revival) without issue. I'm happy to pass the article; it's a concise but in-depth look at the subject that doesn't need any more significant work for GA status. Vaticidalprophet 12:32, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

  Thank you! Ffranc (talk) 12:58, 27 June 2023 (UTC)