Talk:Eir/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Hi. I'm going to be reviewing this article. Kaguya-chan (talk) 19:01, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Okay, the sources look reliable, the image is okay, and the article seems well put together. However, like in the Gná and Hófvarpnir article, the article seems to imply that High is one person, sort of a scholar. Also, could you perhaps go into more detail about what the scholarly theories are about Eir, in the lead. (This might just be me, but where is the skaldic poetry refering to Eir?) Other than that, the article is fine and interesting too. :) Kaguya-chan (talk) 19:27, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Hello again Kaguya-chan! Thank you for looking over another one of my nominations. As for the skaldic mentions, Eir appears in some skaldic kennings out there (which basically just employ her name without providing any immediately obvious information), and it would be good to have them for this article. I think I intended to do so at some point, and just never got around to it. I'll check into it shortly. Otherwise, I believe I've made the changes you've requested here. Please let me know if there's anything else. :bloodofox: (talk) 05:54, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

No problem. I'll put the review on hold to give you some time to look for the skaldic poetry. :) (By the way, what did you mean by "hypostasis"?) Kaguya-chan (talk) 20:14, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. Regarding "hypostasis"; in this case it basically means that Eir has been theorized a form of Freyja. I'll adjust the text to make it more straight forward. :bloodofox: (talk) 01:37, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

I think we should be OK about the kennings now. We can potentially map them all out in time, but saying that there are a bunch of said references (and bringing out the interesting Norwegian runic inscription) should work as a summary. :bloodofox: (talk) 18:06, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

It does work. Great job on the kennings and the article. I'll pass it. :) Kaguya-chan (talk) 18:56, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, your time spent looking the article over is appreciated! :bloodofox: (talk) 19:15, 30 April 2009 (UTC)