Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Norse mythology/archive1

Norse mythology edit

Note the timestamp. This article was apparently renominated without making a new FAC page. I would just fix it, but I don't have time now. Tuf-Kat 04:31, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Recreated from Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Norse mythology/archive

I believe that the article looks much better now. There are, however, some links that lead to non-existent articles, and some who just redirect to a more general article, but I still think it looks great. It has some great pictures as well. But the "Kings and heroes" and the "the future" sections could improve a little. Some of the articles that are linked to that page are also quite naked, and could use a little improvement. But I do believe that this article can reach FA status, very possible indeed. Satanael 11:50, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest that you first announce it on Wikipedia:Peer review so that people can comment on it first.--Wiglaf 11:58, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose – This article has style problems in lower resolutions. 1) In 800x600, Thor.jpg is responsible for pushing sectional [edit] much lower than necessary. I suggest you add this image under =cosmology=. 2) Bad placement of images. The images should not shear headings, =Völuspá:=, =Centres of faith= are guilty of this. midwinterblot.jpg should be brought under =Human sacrifice=. 3) The ToC is granulated. Headings should be as terse as possible and subheadings minimal. 2.2.1 & 2.2.2 * 6.1 should be removed. =Nichalp «Talk»= 12:47, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Support conditional on image wrangling: Note, I have tried to copy-edit and help out, especially by widening the story out a bit when it became too focused on a particular Scandinavian nation (e.g. conversion to Christianity was some places peaceful, some places not, some places by leader, some places not, so "more or less by force" is a statement true of some places, not others). The text looks good, IMO, although the screen does turn a bit blue with all the links. Geogre 01:58, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, I think the topic navagation box is overkill, is there any way more of these could be incorporated into the text- or the table shortened?--nixie 03:29, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Support as it is now. Much improved article indeed. Filiocht | The kettle's on 11:05, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]