Talk:Vígríðr/GA1

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

Reviewer: maclean (talk) 05:37, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
 * GA review (see What is a good article?)


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS):
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * 2) It is stable.
 * 3) 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):
 * 2 images, both WPCommons-hosted public domain images.
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * 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):
 * 2 images, both WPCommons-hosted public domain images.
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:


 * Notes
 * In Poetic Edda, one block quote have quotation mark and the other doesn't. According to MOS:QUOTE the block quotes shouldn't have marks. Is there a reason for one having q marks and other not? of can we remove them?
 * Has there been any academic analysis or ruminations on this location? or comparisons to other religious battlefields?


 * The reason for the quotation marks there is because Bellows's translation includes them, and therefore I have.
 * As I recall, when I wrote this article I couldn't find much talk about the field at all. Surely there's some discussion about the location out there somewhere, but it wasn't in the usual places when I was looking. I would have liked to included a "theories" section with such information. bloodofox: (talk) 03:09, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
 * OK. maclean (talk) 00:49, 25 January 2010 (UTC)