Talk:Swedish heraldry/GA1

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

Hi! I'll be reviewing this article for GA status and should have the full review up shortly. Dana boomer (talk) 17:06, 27 February 2009 (UTC)


 * GA review (see here for criteria)


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS):
 * Is it really necessary to have so many examples of municipal arms displayed in the gallery at the bottom, especially after all of the examples given of city arms in the Municipal heraldry section? The county arms samples could also use a trim. Why not try to get it down to just one row (4 images) for each type of arm (not the Crowns and helmets gallery, but the other 4 sample galleries)?
 * I've removed some from the samples section at the bottom. - Jarry1250 (t, c) 10:09, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I've also cut down the municipalities, but comments request a dicussion before removal (see below). I will follow up after a couple of days. - Jarry1250 (t, c) 13:26, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * References to other Wikipedia articles (even in other languages) are NOT reliable. I counted at least five instances of information being referenced to articles in the Swedish WP, which need to be replaced.
 * Hanging my head in shame. I thought I had replaced all but two of them by now. I'll go back over them ASAP (in a few weeks). Wilhelm_meis (talk) 08:33, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
 * References in English should not be marked as such.
 * I have corrected this, although #32 is in both, so I have left it for now.- Jarry1250 (t, c) 17:55, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Please combine identical refs, such as 1 & 6 and 53 & 54. I have done one other that I saw as an example.
 * I have done this with all I can find, including the above. - Jarry1250 (t, c) 13:26, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
 * What makes Ref #33 (Arboga) a reliable ref?
 * I didn't realize that site was considered unreliable. It was the only place I found any particular mention of the *A* that used to appear above the eagle until the A disappeared and the stars were moved onto to eagle. If necessary, I suppose we can strike the comment, but it certainly is an interesting point on the development of the arms. I'll see if I can find a better source, but it will take me a while. Wilhelm_meis (talk) 08:33, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
 * It's now ref #31, if that makes a difference. If you cannot tell me that the publisher is a reliable one for this type of information, it would probably be better to replace it. At the moment, from the index here it looks to be just an amalgamation site with a ton of different things and no real reliability in the information they provide.
 * What makes Refs #57 and 60 ("The Noble Grip Family") reliable? It appears to be a website self-published by an amateur genealogist.
 * This is admittedly a less-than-ideal source, but I didn't think the threshold of reliability would be very high for supporting the statement that the arms of Bo Jonsson Grip were adopted by Södermanland. Perhaps it is unnecessary to provide an inline citation for this statement, as little research is required to suggest its veracity. Surely a better reference can be found for this if needed. Wilhelm_meis (talk) 08:33, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
 * If this is a very non-controversial fact, it's probably fine to leave for now. It would be best to replace it, though, if you have another, better, ref that provides the same information.
 * I have added a fact tag in one spot where I would like to see a reference.
 * I thought I remembered seeing this in Fox-Davies, but I can't find it right now. My other books are already on their way to Japan, so I can't provide a reference now, but I will when I can. Wilhelm_meis (talk) 08:33, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * Any comments? With only a neutral vote and no commentary, I'm not sure how to improve it or if I should. Wilhelm_meis (talk) 08:33, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I just hadn't gotten to this section yet, as this will be reviewed at the same time that I review the prose.
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * Any comments? Is there anything that is suspected of being non-neutral? Wilhelm_meis (talk) 08:33, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Same as above.
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars etc.:
 * 1) It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * Due to the referencing and layout issues detailed above, I have not completed a full check of the prose. I also notice that the nominator of the article is not the main editor. If the main editor wishes to continue this GA review, please let me know here on the review page. I will complete a full review of the prose when I see work being completed on the issues already listed. Overall this looks like an article with a lot of potential, and I look forward to seeing it at GA status. Please let me know if you have any questions or comments. Dana boomer (talk) 17:37, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the review: although I'm not the main contributor, I do know some things about the subject and have also notified him. He is on wikiholiday, have I made a mistake in nominating this at this time? I should be able to make most of the suggested edits because of WP:OWN (not that the main editor is like that) and WP:BOLD. - Jarry1250 (t, c) 17:55, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Due to the referencing and layout issues detailed above, I have not completed a full check of the prose. I also notice that the nominator of the article is not the main editor. If the main editor wishes to continue this GA review, please let me know here on the review page. I will complete a full review of the prose when I see work being completed on the issues already listed. Overall this looks like an article with a lot of potential, and I look forward to seeing it at GA status. Please let me know if you have any questions or comments. Dana boomer (talk) 17:37, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the review: although I'm not the main contributor, I do know some things about the subject and have also notified him. He is on wikiholiday, have I made a mistake in nominating this at this time? I should be able to make most of the suggested edits because of WP:OWN (not that the main editor is like that) and WP:BOLD. - Jarry1250 (t, c) 17:55, 27 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Just dropping in briefly, but I will be out of touch for a couple more weeks. I just want to say I deeply appreciate all the tips and feedback, and I look forward to what this article will be when we finish making the necessary improvements. While I realize that Swedish WP is not a reliable source, I added some information from Swedish WP when I was still trying to figure out how to make a more complete article, with every intention of replacing each with a reliable source or removing it. I thought I had gotten all of them except in the ecclesiastical heraldry section. I wholeheartedly agree with nearly all of the improvements I see in the current revision (I might make some further suggestions regarding the selection of examples and images included in the article). I will definitely work on eliminating the Swedish WP references ASAP. I also still feel that the ecclesiastical heraldry section is the article's major weak point, but I really can't improve it much without doing a lot more research. I have recently obtained some more heraldry research materials, so I may be able to make some more material improvements once I am finished moving. Thanks again for all your work on this, to all of you who have contributed. Wilhelm_meis (talk) 07:23, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
 * My sincerest apologies for taking so long in replying. I thought I had watchlisted this page, when apparently I hadn't... :( Anyways, the work that is being done so far looks good. However, the Swedish WP references are going to be a major block for GA. Since Wilhelm meis is not going to be able to provide new sources for these for several weeks, it looks like this may not be fixed for a while. Jarry1250, is this something that you can fix? If not, I would suggest that this article be withdrawn from GA consideration until Wilhelm has time to go back through the article and replace these problem sources. Dana boomer (talk) 20:11, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
 * OK, well,I'll let User:Wilhelm Meis tell you that. It's not really something I can fix, so if he says he can't. I have to admit I don't know the process for delisting. - Jarry1250 (t, c) 20:19, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I can take care of the withdrawal, as long as that move has the consensus of the editors. Dana boomer (talk) 21:23, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I am unopposed to this withdrawal. I will try to address all the issues raised here and maybe a few more as soon as I get through moving, then maybe we can do it all again next month. Hopefully it will be a better article after all. Wilhelm_meis (talk) 01:57, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

(undent)OK, I will complete the withdrawal. This is honestly a very good article - it was probably just not a great idea to nominate it when the main contributor was in the middle of an overseas move *grin* WP:OWN and WP:BOLD notwithstanding, main contributors are normally main contributors for a reason - namely their access to sources... Anyways, I look forward to seeing this article back at GAN when the sources have been tightened up. Wilhelm meis - nice work on the article, good luck with your move, and I hope that both you and your books make it to Japan in good shape. Jarry1250 - nice work to you as well and I hope to see you and the article around GAN in the future. Dana boomer (talk) 13:52, 3 March 2009 (UTC)