Talk:Hel (mythological being)/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

I will review this article. Cirt (talk) 08:11, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Good article nomination on hold
This article's Good Article promotion has been put on hold. During review, some issues were discovered that can be resolved without a major re-write. This is how the article, as of December 10, 2008, compares against the six good article criteria:


 * 1. Well written?: Written well throughout, in clear understandable wording.
 * 2. Factually accurate?: Duly cited throughout to appropriate sources.
 * 3. Broad in coverage?: Small issue here. Per WP:LEAD, the lede should not present new material, but rather summarize material later in the article. The lede at present contains material not present later in the article, however. This needs to be addressed.
 * 4. Neutral point of view?: Material presented in a neutral manner.
 * 5. Article stability? No issues upon inspection of edit history going back a few months. No major talk page issues going back a few months either.
 * 6. Images?: 8 free-use images used, all from Wikimedia Commons.

Please address these matters soon and then leave a note here showing how they have been resolved. After 48 hours the article should be reviewed again. If these issues are not addressed within 7 days, the article may be failed without further notice. Thank you for your work so far. Cirt (talk) 22:54, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the review. However, regarding #3 what material are you referring to that is not present later in the article? bloodofox: (talk) 22:58, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
 * written in the 13th century by Snorri Sturluson, and in Heimskringla, also written by Snorri Sturluson in the 13th century. - Could use some minor background on these works, also the fact that these are both written by Sturluson is not mentioned later in the article. Other than that, the lede could be expanded a tad more. Cirt (talk) 23:04, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
 * These things are handled by their respective articles, and it's going off topic to go into the authorship of these works, which opens another can of worms. It's generally accepted that they're from the 13th century, and that's only listed to put them into perspective. bloodofox: (talk) 23:24, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
 * One sentence of brief background on each would be okay. The article is pretty insular enough as far as its subject matter as it is. Cirt (talk) 23:26, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Are you requesting that I restate the information found in the introduction regarding the Poetic Edda and Prose Edda in their respective sections? bloodofox: (talk) 23:28, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, that would indeed help bring it in compliance with WP:LEAD a bit more, yes. Cirt (talk) 23:30, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I believe I've made the requested changes. Please let me know if there's anything else. bloodofox: (talk) 23:46, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, a bit better, thought that long-phrasing in parentheses is a bit awkward. Could use some copyediting. Cirt (talk) 23:58, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I've since adjusted that section. bloodofox: (talk) 00:06, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

GA Passed
Good work and thanks for responding to the above points. Cirt (talk) 05:46, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Great, thanks for taking the time to review the article. bloodofox: (talk) 11:07, 11 December 2008 (UTC)