Talk:Strängnäs stone

Strängnäs stone was a History good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
April 6, 2021	Good article nominee	Not listed

A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on February 14, 2021.

The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that the Strängnäs stone (pictured), long considered a forgery, is probably authentic?

Did you know nomination[edit]

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:50, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(

Comment or view
Article history

)

Strängnäs stone

~~... that the almost mythical Strängnäs stone (pictured) is probably real?~~ Source: various
- ALT1:... that the Strängnäs stone (pictured) was considered a forgery for 49 years? Source: various

No Review Needed

Created/expanded by Berig (talk). Self-nominated at 18:39, 22 January 2021 (UTC).[reply]

ALT2:... that the Strängnäs stone (pictured), long considered a forgery, is probably real?

New enough, long enough, cited, No QPQ needed. Passes earwig. Hook needs approval. --evrik ^(talk) 18:52, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The new hook looks fine!–Berig (talk) 20:21, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Evrik: Looks like Berig is satisfied with the new hook. Is anything else needed before you finish your review? Edge3 (talk) 05:33, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Edge3: technically, I can't approve my own hook, but you could. --evrik ^(talk) 05:43, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- I think it's fine for you to approve, since it's a synthesis of ALT0 and ALT1, and the nominator agrees to your proposal. But in any case, I've also conducted my own review, and I approve ALT2. No copyvio detected, and the article is well written and cited. Accepting offline sources in good faith. Edge3 (talk) 06:05, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Who?[edit]

Who are Gustavsson and Swantesson? 212.159.76.165 (talk) 13:54, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I will help you out: Jan Swantesson is a professor at Karlstad University, University site. Helmer Gustavsson, died in 2018. The Royal Gustavus Adolphus Academy presents him as "one of World's foremost experts on runic inscriptions".--Berig (talk) 14:53, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:Strängnäs stone/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Chipmunkdavis (talk · contribs) 13:52, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Beginning this review. First impression is that the lead contains a few references not included elsewhere in the article, which suggests information may be in the lead which is not elsewhere in the article (eg. Runic-text database info). CMD (talk) 13:52, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed with a new section.--Berig (talk) 14:10, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Possible origin

This section feels like it should be grouped with Geologic studies, as presumably it was these sorts of studies that led to its potential origin being ascertained. There should be more geographic context so the information is more understandable for international readers, who won't know where Strängnäs is. Is the estate mentioned an important historical one, or mythical one, and what is the time period of this estate?

Discovery

This section doesn't seem to actually describe a discovery. It jumps right into the stone already being discovered. It sounds like it somehow involved a stove, but it is unclear how. The text also doesn't say where it was discovered, and what happened after it was discovered. The quote provided seems a bit cryptic, if it is included could there be an explanation of its meaning? The section also contains three names dropped in with little explanation. There's also a lack of dates in this section, aside from the 1870s but it doesn't sound like it was discovered then.

International interest

This section is just one long paragraph, and like the previous section drops quite a few names without any explanatory context. Phrases like "at Vienna" are quite jargony and should be written more clearly, noting the countries as well. There is discussion about publishing, but the previous section stated it had already been published. It's unclear how the foreign researchers heard about the stone. Is having two interested foreigners a big deal in this field? The section ends quite abruptly, saying there was no publication. The 2011 publication mentioned later would fit here as a conclusion to the discovery chronology.

Tried to detail the name-drops with demonyms and professions, and expanded the geographical references (e.g. "at Vienna" to "at the University of Vienna"), which should, in combination with the demonyms, provide sufficient geographical context for the foreign researchers. I also mentioned the 2011 publication at the very end of the section, but hesitated to move the later paragraph regarding the 2011 work to this section.—PJsg1011 (talk) 19:04, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Linguistic analysis and context

"Neither could the fake inscription Wodana hailag on the Kerlich buckle from Rheinland-Pfalz have inspired the inscription from Strängnäs." Could this be explained, including the potential relationship?
Acronyms such as OWN/PIE/PN should be spelt out, or better indicated as first use.
"to compare with the inscription hAriwolafʀ on the Stentoften Runestone and hAerAmAlAusʀ on the Björketorp Runestone." It would be good if this comparison was explained more clearly.
"and with all those three" Should this be "as with all those three"?

In general this is quite a technical section, which is understandable, but it's worth seeing if there are terms or phrases (eg. "u-stem", "closed frame") that could be given a translation (so to speak).

Geological studies

"faint erosion that had removed all remains of crushed quartz". Why would crushed quartz be expected? I assume that means trace crushed material, but this should be explained. Giving the material of the rock early on would also be useful establishing information for this section.

Lead

The lead still seems to be written on its own merits, not as a summary as it should be per WP:LEAD. It has a lot of the information that I've noted above was clearly missing from various sections, in addition to other unique information, and sentences that frame other information that are lacking from the article body. The lead is perhaps also not a good place to name drop at all, even with explanation.

Overall I think the core of a good article is here, but there needs to be some prose work to better contextualise the information for a general audience. I think this should be doable within a reasonable time frame, especially as this article seems thoroughly researched, so I will put this GAN on hold. CMD (talk) 15:42, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Three weeks have passed so I am closing this now. Hopefully it can help a future nomination. Best, CMD (talk) 11:16, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]