Talk:Valkyrie/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Overview of GA Review (see here for criteria)

---

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (no original research):

3. It is broad in its coverage

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   a (fair representation): b (all significant views):

5. It is stable.
6. It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic.

   a (copyright tagged and captioned): b (appropriate use; lack of images does not in itself exclude GA):

7. Overall:

   a Pass/Fail:

I'll be reviewing this. Please be patient as comments are being prepared. Whitehorse1 23:45, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Update: My review is taking longer than I first anticipated, as with much to cover the article is substantial (would print to approx. 15 pages). (GA reviews can generally take up to seven days to complete.) I want to reassure contributors to the article that I am making progress. To help editors I'll comment here as I go along, before posting the completed review. I have only a few comments to make at this point.

My initial impression is this is a strong article. Since beginning a rewrite in Mid-December 2008, the GA nominator has added substantial sourced material, particularly on coverage in literature. This is nice to see!

Good Article criteria 5) 'Stable with no edit warring' is met. You also seem to have met criteria 6) 'Illustrated where possible with relevant images', with several images (though I still have further checking to do against WP image use criteria). -- Whitehorse1 21:49, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Hello Whitehorse. No problem, thanks for taking time to review this article. I have just noticed that this article was under review. It is indeed a large article that I've been working on for a few months now, so I can understand the delay. :bloodofox: (talk) 23:46, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

I did some minor copy editing. Feel free to change any mistakes with nuances of wording I may have made.

These are my initial comments. I have some minor things to cover on the later parts of the article, but the bulk of my niggles are on the earlier half. Please don't worry that it looks like a lot — most are just little things! Once these are tackled, I'll go over remaining issues and we'll move forward from there. – Whitehorse1 06:36, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Update: I am doing my final read-through (current article) now. I think everything'll be wrapped up shortly. –Whitehorse1 21:34, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Update: I've pretty much finished the final review. After some much-needed sleep I'll polish it some more and post it here. –Whitehorse1 02:36, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, Whitehorse! You've done a great job here. Take your time :) –Holt T•C 10:34, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your kind words, Holt. I only wish I could reward your and Bloodofox's patience too! :) –Whitehorse1 16:28, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Well written requirement

Prose is well-written. Some light copyediting needed. (Mainly for redundancies.)

Lead

• "There, when the Einherjar are not preparing for the events of Ragnarök, the valkyries look after their tableware and drinks."

Simple English, which is good, but makes them sound like waitresses. Might be fine to leave as-is.

Actually, the reference to them in the lead of Einherjar (which I believe you also rewrote!) seems much better.

• "...Archaeological finds have been theorized as depicting valkyries. Scholarly theories have been proposed about the relation between..."

The lead, particularly the 2nd paragraph, information on each key section in turn gives a disjointed feel to the prose. Editing so there's a smooth transition between sentences and paragraphs will help here.

• Perhaps link 'cognate' to a Wiktionary definition ([[Wiktionary:cognate|]])? Up to you.

Yep, that was me who rewrote the einherjar article. :D In Gylfaginning, the valkyries are described as "minding the silverware" of the einherjar (referring to the valkyries, High says "there are still others whose duty it is to serve in Valhalla. They bring drink and see to the table and the ale cups."—weirdly enough) which, indeed, makes them sound like some sort of waitresses of the dead. However, the giving of drink by valkyries (Sigrdrífumál, horn-bearing silver figures, and so forth) seems to be much more common a theme (and seemingly of some sacral significance). As a result, per your suggestion I have dropped the tableware mention from the introduction. :bloodofox: (talk) 22:20, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Main body

• In section 2.1.2 Völundarkviða (Poetic Edda), a quote reads "near them were their swan's garments…". Explaining the Valkryie connection to swans beforehand will make it clearer for readers.

I've added to the introduction that the valkyries are, at times, connected with swans. I think that's about as definitive as we can get with it (without me veering off into my own personal theories for this), but it ought to solve the problem. :bloodofox: (talk) 19:05, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Agreed; marking done.

---

Before I continue, I should explain my reason behind discussing the works themselves and what you state they were saying (in the attestation sections). It might seem unusual detail for a GA review.

I found the article confusing to follow at a few points, such as when it gave a sequence of events. Now this may reflect the translation Larrington (which I didn't have access to), or the apparent patchwork nature of what remains of the original works; or, something we can improve without compromising accuracy.

While I didn't have access to Larrington, I looked at an earlier translation and commentary - Bellows^*, which was linked from an article you wikilink in your article. I was able to understand what was going on much better, when I looked at that alongside this article's discussion of the texts. It's possible this is due to Bellows taking liberties with translating the source and annotations, so please feel free to use your judgement here!
 ^*The Poetic Edda Translated By Henry Adams Bellows 1936 [http://www.sacred-texts.com/neu/poe/index.htm]

Section 2.1.4 Helgakviða Hundingsbana I

16. High under helms | on heaven's field;

Their byrnies all | with blood were red,

And from their spears | the sparks flew forth.

16. Some editions fill out the first line: "He saw there mighty maidens riding." (Bellows)

Compared with the Larrington translation used ("Their byrnies were drenched in blood; and rays shone from their spears.") the corresponding line in this gives a more verse feel; though may be less accurate too. Thoughts?

I chose Larrington's translation because she made it explicit that they are valkyries by inserting [came the valkyries] into her translation. For our purposes on this article, I thought this was more straightforward. :bloodofox: (talk) 20:10, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

That, is a very good point. I do find Bellows's' translation more vibrant, but you're correct Larrington's translation is more effective for the article. Whitehorse1 13:15, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Section 2.1.4 Helgakviða Hundingsbana I

• "The battle over, the valkyrie Sigrún ("victory-rune"), informs him from her horse that her father Högni has betrothed her to Höðbroddr … Helgi assembles an immense host…"
  

The phrase 'immense host' sounds unusual to my ear. Perhaps immense force? batallion? We might be limited by how much this can be rephrased, since after all we're saying what Larrington wrote.

Yeah, it sounds a bit odd at first, but it's probably the best way to describe it. It's a big group of people, but any further detail seems to be problematic. :bloodofox: (talk) 20:44, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Understood, lets tick this one off. Whitehorse1 13:15, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

• "…to ride to wage battle at Frekastein against the Hniflung clan to assist Sigrún in her plight to avoid her betrothal to Höðbroddr..."

She is betrothed (adj.), to her betrothed (n.). Might I suggest the alternative noun "to avoid her betrothment"?

(In 2.1.3 Helgakviða Hjörvarðssonar, you say "Helgi and Sváva are betrothed, and love one another greatly." This is fine.)

Changed per suggestion. :bloodofox: (talk) 20:44, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank you kindly.

• "Later in the poem, the hero Sinfjötli flyts with Guðmundr."

This sentence - all part of the same paragraph - introduces 2 new characters and tells us what they're doing. This is a sudden jump from concentrating about Helgi, whom we've up to now been been following, and his chivalrous quest to wage battle at Frekastein for Sigrún.

I've skipped ahead in the poem to get to the valkyrie references here. I should perhaps point out that the accusations Sinfjötli makes at Guðmundr of having been not only a witch but also a valkyrie (in very negative terms) is not exactly clear and what he's talking about isn't detailed further elsewhere, but the the mention itself brings out the evident notion of valkyries being some type of witch. :bloodofox: (talk) 20:44, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Highlighting key parts is just good sense. One thing to keep an eye on is maintaining smooth transition between the different parts being discussed. Here, that's complicated by the patchwork nature of the extant works, and importance of elements that might not easily lend themselves to being covered in a clear sequence. I agree this valkyrie-witch notion merits inclusion, and its mention in the article also meets the GA well-written criterion. –Whitehorse1 17:54, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

• "...adding that all of the Einharjar "had to fight, headstrong woman, on your account..." Einharjar => Einherjar ;)

Fixed. –Holt T•C 19:03, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

• Further in the poem, the phrase "the valkyrie's airy sea" is used for "mist".

This doesn't really fit in with the rest of the section, which recounts the events in the work. I would leave it out.

Personally I think this is an odd reference that we shouldn't necessarily skip over. For example, it might have some relation to the description of dew coming from the horses of valkyries, and maybe even the valkyrie name Mist. Of course, I could be wrong, but these odd little references can sometimes be of great importance. In any case, for the sake of completion, I'd prefer to just leave it in. :bloodofox: (talk) 20:44, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

That sounds fine. Let's strike this. Whitehorse1 17:54, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

• "After, all the valkyries fly away but Sigrún, and wolves consume corpses:"

Recast sentence for flow? The reference to trolls in the verse that follows is also a bit confusing, since this is the first time mention of them.

I believe I've solved this problem with a clarification that the "troll-women" reference refers to wolves, and some prose adjustments. :bloodofox: (talk) 20:44, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

• Redundant word: The battle won, Sigrún tells Helgi that he will become a great ruler, and she pledges herself to him.

Fixed. :bloodofox: (talk) 20:44, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Section 2.1.5 Helgakviða Hundingsbana II

• "The narrative says that Sigrún, daughter of King Högni, is "a valkyrie and road through air and sea"

Do you mean 'rode through' or 'through air, road and sea'?

It is "rode". Fixed. –Holt T•C 19:03, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

• "After stanza 18, a prose narrative relates that Helgi and his immense fleet of ships are heading to Frekastein but encounter a very dangerous storm."

Suggest "a great storm". Ideally, take a look to see if sentence can be copyedited.

Fixed. :bloodofox: (talk) 21:56, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

• Redundant words: Lightning flashes and strikes one of the ships.

Fixed. –Holt T•C 19:11, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, Holt. Whitehorse1 13:15, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

• "The fleet sees nine valkyries flying through the air, among who they recognize as Sigrún."

Perhaps something like among whom they recognize Sigrún / among these they recognize Sigrún, etc.

Fixed. –Holt T•C 19:11, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

• "Helgi dies in battle, yet returns to visit Sigrún from Valhalla once in a burial mound, and at the end of the poem, a prose epilogue explains that Sigrún later dies of grief."

I didn't follow this. A burial mound is a solid mound of earth, so I wondered did you mean an empty grave, or a burial chamber in some sort of structure. It seemed to make sense after I read another (Bellows) source:
 Helgakvitha Hundingsbana II Translation and commentary by Henry Adams Bellows 1936 [http://www.sacred-texts.com/neu/poe/poe20.htm]

(VI) Helgi took Sigrun to wife, and they had sons. Helgi did not reach old age. Dag, the son of Hogni, offered sacrifice to Othin to be avenged for his father's death; Othin gave Dag his spear. Dag found Helgi, his brother-in-law, at a place which is called Fjoturlund. He thrust the spear through Helgi's body. Then Helgi fell, and Dag rode to Sevafjoll and told Sigrun the tidings:

stanza 28. "Sad am I, sister, | sorrow to tell thee,..."

"37. "Helgi rose | above heroes all

A hill was made in Helgi's memory. And when he came to Valhall, then Othin bade him rule over every thing with himself.

Prose. Valhall, etc.: there is no indication as to where the annotator got this notion of Helgi's sharing Othin's rule. It is most unlikely that such an idea ever found place in any of the Helgi poems, or at least in the earlier ones; probably it was a late development of the tradition in a period when Othin was no longer taken seriously.]

(VIII) One of Sigrun's maidens went one evening to Helgi's hill, and saw that Helgi rode to the hill with many men, The maiden said:

39. "Is this a dream | that methinks I see,

Or the doom of the gods, | that dead men ride,...

39. Here begins the final section (stanzas 39-50), wherein Sigrun visits the dead Helgi in his burial hill. ...

Helgi spake:

40. "No dream is this | that thou thinkest to see,...

The maiden went home and said to Sigrun:

41. "Go forth, Sigrun, | from Sevafjoll,

If fain the lord | of the folk wouldst find;

(The hill is open, | Helgi is come;)

Sigrun went in the hill to Helgi, and said:..

50. ...

Sigrun was early dead of sorrow and grief. It was believed in olden times that people were born again, but that is now called old wives' folly. Of Helgi and Sigrun it is said that they were born again; he became Helgi Haddingjaskati, and she Kara the daughter of Halfdan, as is told in the Lay of Kara, and she was a Valkyrie.

Prose. The attitude of the annotator is clearly revealed by his contempt for those who put any faith in such "old wives' folly" as the idea that men and women could be reborn. As in the case of Helgi Hjorvarthsson, the theory of the hero's rebirth seems to have developed in order to unite around a single Helgi the various stories in which the hero is slain. The Lay of Kara (Karuljoth) is lost, although, as has been pointed out, parts of the Helgakvitha Hundingsbana II may be remnants of it, but we find the main outlines of the story in the Hromundar saga Greipssonar, whose compilers appear to have known the Karuljoth. In the saga Helgi Haddingjaskati (Helgi the Haddings' Hero) is protected by the Valkyrie Kara, who flies over him in the form of a swan (note once more the Valkyrie swan-maiden confusion); (Bellows)

The impression gleaned from the Bellows source made more sense to me, that the hill opened up or parted on either side (leaving a gap (or revealing a chamber) I suppose) so that Sigrún could enter.

In general there is little literature covering the apparent belief in reincarnation in Norse pagans gleamed from these heroic poems, but Bellows' theory is by no means the only one. Whatever the case, it's obviously not Christian. Another editor and I have talked a bit about making a Reincarnation in Norse mythology article to attempt to bring out these references and the various theories and explanations that we can dig up surrounding them. As it stands, I wouldn't put any theories about these mentions of reincarnation in this article.

About the burial mounds, "the hill has opened" seems to be an addition by Bellows. I should point out that burial mounds contain chambers for the deceased and, often, various belongings and other objects. How did they get into the mound? Well, the whole thing is obviously quite supernatural in character, so the logic of her entrance may not necessarily taken very literally: we have a valkyrie and her deceased husband (now an einherjar) inside his burial mound. Who is to say she's not just sitting atop the mound thinking about her dead love, in parallel to the silent young man (who became a Helgi) who encounters valkyries earlier (in Helgakviða Hjörvarðssonar)? There are a lot of ways to interpret this poignant scene. Whatever the case, I presume that it is better to stick to the source translation as much as possible. :bloodofox: (talk) 21:56, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

• The epilogue details that "there was a belief in the pagan religion, which we now reckon an old wives' tale, that people could be reincarnated ..." 'Reckon' is rather informal. While this probably comes from the translator, it may be easier to rephrase it, and just cite the point he made rather than directly quote him.

While usage of the word "reckon" may conjure images of rural life in US English, it's quite commonly used in British English and this usage may be because Larrington is herself British. I've chosen not to paraphrase this section because of the delicacy the quote. Due to the importance of these 'reincarnation' references, I would prefer to just outright quote them rather than attempt to paraphrase them in fear of inaccuracies. However, if you'd prefer something else, we can of course consider Thrope's and Bellows' translations. Here is what Thorpe has:

"Sigrun's life was shortened by grief and mourning. It was a belief in ancient times that men were regenerated, and that is now regarded as an old crone's fancy. Helgi and Sigrun are said to have been regenerated. [...]" Thorpe (1907:154).

For quick comparison, Bellows has:

"Sigrun was early dead of sorrow and grief. It was believed in olden times that people were born again, but that is now called old wives' folly. Of Helgi and Sigrun it is said that they were born again; [...]" Bellows (1936:330)

Of these three, I figured that Larrington's was the most appropriate. :bloodofox: (talk) 21:56, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

It does seem somewhat unusual usage for British English I think; perhaps through the grammatical voice in the quote. Thank you for posting those three options, Bloodofox. I agree with your choice! Whitehorse1 17:54, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

• "were considered to have been" Wordy.

Problem solved. I just quoted the prose per Larrington's translation. :bloodofox: (talk) 21:56, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

2.1.6 Sigrdrífumál

1. Redundant word: "sees a warrior lying there asleep and fully armed"
2. Redundant word: "the woman explains that Odin placed a sleeping spell on her that she could not break."
3. Sigurd asks for her name, and the woman gives Sigurd a horn of mead to help retain it in his memory. The woman recites a heathen prayer in two stanzas, followed by a prose narrative that explains that the woman is Sigrdrífa, a valkyrie.

:The flow of events seem awkward here. i) Sigurd asks her name, ii) she gives him a horn of mead - it's not clear if she told him her name in response; handing him a drinking horn doesn't really follow on from his question (also: 'to help him remember it' might be better). iii) she recites verse preceding a narrative where we find the 'woman is Sigrdrífa, a valkyrie.' - as phrased it sounds as if one is a type of the other or a qualifier i.e "She is am undead, a vampire" or "I am Jocelyn, a friend" etc. The reader can find out by clicking her wikilinked name, at the destination article, that her name's Sigrdrífa and she is a valkyrie. Tightening up the prose would be great though.

4. "A narrative relates that Sigrdrífa explains to Sigurd..." Wordy?

1. As the sleeping business is mentioned a bit later, fixed.

2. Appears to be solved.

3. I think I've solved the problem with some adjustments to the prose. I should point out that, as is the case with some of these Poetic Edda poems, there is not only verse but also narrative here. The narrative pops in and out sometimes, resulting in a disjointed feeling. Noting a change is significant as sometimes the prose narrative is suspected of being a much later addition, and sometimes the prose isn't saying exactly the same thing as the verse is. Sometimes a slight change can result in a different spin than what the source material appears to provide, and the reason for doing odd things isn't necessarily explained. Linking together sources can also get complex fast, and can result in original research. For example, Brynhildr is seemingly the same figure as Sigrdrífa and so forth, yet her character and actions often differ by source, sometimes quite significantly.

4. I am afraid this is hard to avoid. :bloodofox: (talk) 02:55, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

2.2 Prose Edda

1. "where the enthroned figure of High tells Gangleri (King Gylfi in disguise) details the activities of the valkyries and mentions a few goddesses." Bit wordy.
2. "depicted on a newly built hall" Substitute 'in'?
3. "Within this building Sigurd finds a sleeping woman wearing a helmet and a coat of mail. Sigurd cuts the mail from her, and she awakes and says her name is..." There's a strong similarity to the previous section — "2.1.6 Sigrdrífumál" — should this be here?
   

1. I'm not sure how else to word this, outside of dropping that this Gangleri is Gylfi, which may not really be necessary to mention (though I usually do as as Gangerli is also one of the many names of Odin).

2. Problem solved.

Will just 'in' work for you, as in "Úlfr describes mythological scenes in a newly built hall"?

I think this gives rise to confusion. I should clarify that the scenes are inside the hall. As far as I recall, we don't know if Úlfr is inside the hall or not when he's describing the scenes. :bloodofox: (talk) 22:11, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. I think the changes you made look good. The use of the grammatical subject is fine. Marking done. Whitehorse1 17:54, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

3. This section of Skáldskaparmál relays the same events as Sigrdrífumál yet with some significant differences, including that the valkyrie is referred to by a different name. Basically, both sources provide differing information regarding a Northern Germanic version of the evidently pan-Germanic Völsung Cycle. :bloodofox: (talk) 02:31, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Ah, that explains the similarities. Thanks for clarifying for me. Let's tick that item off. Whitehorse1 17:54, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

2.3 Hrafnsmál

• "The valkyrie considers herself to be wise"
• "The raven expresses surprise that the valkyrie seems to be unfamiliar"

Both problems solved. :bloodofox: (talk) 02:31, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

2.4 Njáls saga

• "The twelve go into the hut, and are lost to Dörruð's sight."

Wordy?

Changed to "The twelve go into the hut and Dörruð can no longer see them." :bloodofox: (talk) 22:09, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

2.5 Heimskringla

1. "the poem Hákonarmál by the 10th century skald Eyvindr skáldaspillir is presented which contains valkyries" Wordy?
2. "Haakon was there buried in a large burial mound" buried there
3. "choose among the kings' kinsmen" and decide who in battle should dwell"
4. ‘kenning’ You should probably wikilink this word, which most will be unfamiliar with. The Runic inscriptions section further on wikilinks it, but the reader won't see that until later.

Changed #2 (as wasn't part of direct quote) & #4 since they seemed easy, neutral changes. Whitehorse1 11:16, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Fixed 1 (dropped the valkyrie mention here—obvious enough further in). 4 also fixed. :bloodofox: (talk) 22:07, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

1. Oh yep, good point. Whitehorse1 13:15, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

3 Old English attestations

• "In the manuscript Cotton Cleopatra A. iii, wælcyrge is also used to gloss the Roman goddess Bellona."

I'm not clear what you mean by gloss?

I wikilinked to gloss, it is merely a simple translation. –Holt T•C 19:20, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Ah, thanks. Whitehorse1 13:15, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

• "Theories have been produced about whether"

Wordy. Another thought: Reading this I don't know if the source says 'there've been theories' (by whom?) or these theories are actually in the source.

I believe I have now solved this. Basically, it now says that scholars have proposed theories, and then refers below to the theories section where they can find these theories fleshed out. :bloodofox: (talk) 19:14, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Section 4.1 Female figures and, cup and horn-bearers

• The four images - with the runestone one, I wondered if placing these in an image gallery dropdown box might be a good idea. Not obligatory of course.
• Specific valkyries are mentioned on two runestones; the early 9th century Rök Runestone in Rök, Östergötland, Sweden

I think 2nd Rök is redundant. Please delete if agreed.

Since we only have one row of images, I think we might as well keep it as it is. If more images pop up and it results in two rows, I would go with the drop down menu. I dropped the "Rök". :bloodofox: (talk) 18:49, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Section 6.1 Old English wælcyrge and Old English charms

• "Two Old English charms contain mentions of figures that are theorized…"

Two Old English charms mention figures that are theorized

Seems to be fixed. –Holt T•C 17:21, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

• "Wið færstice, a charm intended to cure a sudden pain (or stitch), and For a Swarm of Bees, a charm intended to keep"

Redundant words: intended, on each. Seems to be fixed. –Holt T•C 17:21, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

• These female figures have been theorized as connected to valkyries.

Wordy?

• The notion has alternately been theorized

Do you mean alternately, as opposed to alternatively?

Fixed the "female figures" line with changed up prose (and dropped "female"), and fixed the "alternately" with a clearer prose. :bloodofox: (talk) 18:42, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Section 6.2 Merseburg Incantation, fetters, dísir, idisi, and norns

1. "Simek says that "as the function of the matrons was also extremely varied – fertility goddess, personal guardians, but also warrior-goddesses – the belief" Should use non-breaking space with mdashes. Not required for GA or a big thing though; just mention as other parts of the article have that. Easy for me to fix quickly.
2. "Grimm states that a dís can be both norn and a valkyrie, "but their functions are separate and usually the persons." Is the sentence missing a word on the end?
3. "The valkyrs ride to war" Different plural form for valkryie here. A Grimm-ism?

1. I made a couple of tweaks. ...Faced with such a strong article, and in my enthusiasm to see the article be all it can be, I may have been too particular in including this.

2. I believe I see what it's saying on subsequent reads, though feel it could be tweaked to enhance its clarity.

3. Indeed, "valkyrs" is the work of Grimm. :bloodofox: (talk) 18:46, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Section 6.3 Origins and development

• "and that a shift in interpretation of the valkyries may have occurred "when the concept of Valhalla changed from a battlefield to a warrior's paradise."
• "Simek says that this original concept was "superseded by the shield girls - Irish female warriors who lived on like the einherjar in Valhall.""

Check Valhall is correct in the quote - vs. Valhalla.

Checked quote – it is correct. –Holt T•C 17:18, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

• became popular figures in heroic poetry

Add suitable wikilink on heroic poetry.

Done. –Holt T•C 17:18, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, great stuff. Whitehorse1 14:39, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

• "stripped of their "demonic characteristics and became more human, and therefore become capable of falling in love with morals"
  Should this be mortals?

That's right. Fixed. –Holt T•C 17:18, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

• or whom there is some historical evidence from the regions round the Black Sea" and adds that there may

Suggest split 'into another sentence: She adds that there may...'.

Seems to be fixed. –Holt T•C 17:18, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. Whitehorse1 14:39, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

• "…sinners, witches, and evildoers" and that "all the other classes…"

Possibly change 'that' to given/as/since to relate the two Wulfstan references. They're different quotes though, so feel free to leave as-is if you believe linking them unsuitable.

• traveler Ibn Fadlan detailed account of a

Think rest of article uses British English (traveller). Looks like possessive (Fadlan's?) should be used too.

• upon" (who Fadlan refers to as the "Angel of Death") who organizes the killing of the slave girl, and who has two other

upon" (whom Fadlan refers to as the "Angel of Death"), who organizes the killing of the slave girl, and who has two other

My mistake - the first is used correctly. Deleted 2nd 'who'.

Section 7 Modern influence

1. Please could you comment with the criteria you use for what to place in italics, to bring me up to speed.
2. The part about the Operation Valkyrie German Army plan doesn't seem to me to fit with the rest of the section. I can't see a link besides the nomenclature.
3. Probably worth adding video games mention to the first sentence of the section, since they're listed in the lead that way.

1. Italics are used to denote bigger works like books, journals, magazines, musical works (like an opera or an album, but not a song), games etc. Quotation marks are for single works like poems, artworks, songs etc. Bloodofox might have a more specific definition, but this is how I have understood it. I italicized Die Walküre, which is an opera. –Holt T•C 17:05, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

3. I went to add it into the sentence, but it made me feel dirty. I'll leave it to your judgment to decide if it's suitable. Whitehorse1

Now striking. –Whitehorse1 14:39, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

1. I generally just use quotations for songs and specific essays within books or journals. Otherwise I stick to italics. I've always gotten the impression that this is an issue of user discretion, but you're welcome to let me know if otherwise. As for 2, I think it's a pretty significant event in history where the concept of the valkyries—or even the name—was well known enough to be used. I'm not very familiar with the logistics of the original plan, but maybe there was some logical reason for the name. :bloodofox: (talk) 03:10, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Oh no, that's fine. I was just asking because I could see some "foreign" / "archaic" words italicized or quoted while others weren't; yours and Holt's answer were very helpful. As for 2, I was thinking of boldly removing the reference previously (though of course wouldn't re-revert), before I read your comment! My thinking was the other works listed all have valkryies as a major part. In contrast this item, despite its historical significance, seemed comparable to the girls' soccer teams mentioned in this article's talk page – a namesake. I found a section in the Ride of the Valkyries article thought provoking, and agree a logical reason for the name might well exist. I'm swayed by your coherent and compelling justification: Let's tick that one off. –Whitehorse1 15:55, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Images

• "The Valkyrie's Vigil" by Edward Robert Hughes. - Year on caption? (The other images have one.)

The date of this painting is unknown, unfortunately. I have searched high and low, but not found out yet. When I or someone else do, we will of course add it to the caption. –Holt T•C 15:56, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

No problem.

I have also looked all over for the date on this work and came up blank. I'm a big advocate for dating in captions too and I probably would have avoided it were it not such a nice image and obviously public domain. :bloodofox: (talk) 18:54, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree. I decided I'd search some databases online, and came up with…precisely nothing! It is a nice image. The painter's article you linked from the description points to 'List of Pre-Raphaelite paintings', which dates the painting to 1906; that said, the list completely lacks refs or citations. I've tentatively added (feel free to remove) the 1906 date in - while the list didn't list a source, it's more info than my search turned up; in any event, the 1914 death of the artist places it before 1923, and I agree it's obviously public domain. Whitehorse1 10:57, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank you! The information was even on Wikipedia, how ironic. Good thing you were observant. Here's something to further back it up, it is a professional page. –Holt T•C 15:04, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Great stuff. I've added the ref. link you found to the list page to help others too. –Whitehorse1 16:28, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

• File:Silver figure with hair and silver figure with horse.jpg (used in Archaeological record section). Is that your thumb at the bottom? :)

Bloodofox states that it's the museum lighting. I removed the blur with Photoshop. –Holt T•C 15:56, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks - looks good. –Whitehorse1 17:04, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks a lot, Holt—I don't know why I didn't do that before! I am afraid it was very difficult to avoid the overhead lighting on the display, and that is the best I could do (thus the perhaps odd angle). :bloodofox: (talk) 18:52, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

• Image caption: "An Anglo-Saxon burial mound at Sutton Hoo near Woodbridge, Suffolk, England." to: "An Anglo-Saxon burial mound at Sutton Hoo in Suffolk, England." (I think the county is small, and Sutton Hoo well-known for find.)

Fixed. –Holt T•C 16:55, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Other items

1. References 21/22 (Larrington (1999:132)) can be merged into single named reference, matching others.
2. Include dashes on ISBNs; some of the refs have them, some don't.
3. Check (Swedish) Wessén, Elias; Sven B.F. Jansson (1953-1958) ref should have date range on it.
4. Simek, Rudolf (2007) translated by Angela Hall. Dictionary of Northern Mythology. Elsewhere style is e.g.: Hollander, Lee Milton (Trans.) (2007).

1. It looks like the citation in the text stems from a copy & paste and should read 1999:132. Loathe to change myself without access to the text though. (Ref: "and adds that she is the valkyrie Sváva reincarnated.<ref name="LARRINGTON133">Larrington (1999:132).</ref>"). If the use of (1999:132) twice is intentional, the named reference should be used 2nd time for consistency. Whitehorse1 17:54, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

2. Done. Now match Standards Agency's Hyphenation Instructions spec. (thanks to their handy converter).

3. Ah, I see now, it's a journal not a book title. It looks as though an article title and maybe journal title and volume were grouped in under the title element? Feel free to strike this if any necessary change isn't a quick fix though. Swapping it to the cite journal template may format the separate fields more distinctly. Whitehorse1 17:54, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

It looks correct to me. It's not really a journal, it's more of a multi-volume catalog of runic inscriptions. The cited work is one in a series. See Sveriges runinskrifter for more information and a list of all volumes. –Holt T•C 20:38, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Ah, the ISSN—used mainly for periodicals—probably threw me. It seems both numbering systems are used for books in a series (the ISBN identifies the individual book, while the ISSN identifies the ongoing series). Actually, looking at the article you linked, later volumes do use both. As the cited work is pre-1970 (when the ISBN format was developed), that's probably why this one doesn't. (For that matter, the ISSN system was adopted in 1975; pre-publication assignments can be assigned retroactively, which is probably what this uses.) Thanks for taking another look at it for me, Holt. –Whitehorse1 21:28, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

4. Simek's dictionary is a secondary source, while Hollander's is a translation of a primary one. Hollander translated a primary source from Old Norse to English, while Angela Hall translated a secondary source from German to English. The two styles are used to denote just that. –Holt T•C 06:09, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for explanation. Understood. Whitehorse1 14:49, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

1. I have corrected this mistake: they are correctly separate pages. :bloodofox: (talk) 03:37, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Great stuff, thanks. –Whitehorse1 21:28, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Regarding 3., I am afraid I am unfamiliar with this work (I didn't add it). Holt is probably the one to deal with issues surrounding this one. :bloodofox: (talk) 03:43, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Berig added it, replacing a less reliable reference. diff –Holt T•C 11:44, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Final Points

• The Lead includes the sentence "Valkyries also appear as lovers of human beings and heroes ...". Presumably the heroes are human beings, so it reads oddly.

I changed this to "Valkyries also appear as lovers of heroes and other mortals", which should be alright for the lead. Holt (T•C) 15:58, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Works for me! Whitehorse1 16:06, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

• Old English attestations section: "The Old English wælcyrge appears several times in Old English manuscripts, generally to translate foreign concepts into Old English. In the sermon Sermo Lupi ad Anglos, written by Wulfstan II, where the term is considered to appear as word for a human 'sorceress'."
  • The second sentence is a sentence fragment.
  • The phrase "is considered" might be a weasel word, likely to be flagged such by other users or semi-automated tools. The phrase should specify exactly who considers such a view. If it is Richard North (which looks likely), please provide a citation.

I removed "where" from the sentence fragment, should be right now. I added an inline citation for the "is considered" phrase. I think this is commonly accepted, so no need to state which scholar thinks this. Holt (T•C) 07:41, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

• Two spellings refer to a single work: 'Glossary', in the Theories: Old English wælcyrge and Old English charms section cf. 'Glossery' - Corpus Glossery, in the Old English attestations section.

Fixed. Holt (T•C) 17:44, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

• The listing of works (Modern influence section) includes two spelling variants: an 1882 painting uses Einherier, whereas a c. 1900 painting uses Einheriar. It's plausible both are as-named by the respective artists, rather than typos, but please check.

Checked and fixed. Einherier was the correct one. Holt (T•C) 17:44, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

The article meets all GA criteria. :bloodofox:, and Holt, thank you for the great work you've done on the article. I'm pleased to pass Valkyrie as a Good Article. Whitehorse1 16:06, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for a thorough and relevant review! It has been a pleasure :} –Holt (T•C) 16:22, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Great! Thanks for the wonderful review, and thank you very much for investing the time in this, Whitehorse1 and Holt! :bloodofox: (talk) 22:09, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Suggestions for further improvement – post-GA

• A strong positive attribute is the article's coverage of primary sources and contemporary authorities. Something to be careful of when covering a broad range of sources or authorities, is referring to them in the same way. That can make the prose seem stilted. Here, let me give you an example. You use ($name) "says that" 23 times, and use "states that" a further 6 times. Sometimes you might use these devices twice in close succession, highlighting their effect. An example crops up in the Origins and development section: "Davidson says that (followed by long quote). Davidson says that..." Varying how you refer to and introduce them enhances the clarity, flow and impact of your writing. Of course, take care not to overdo it.

• The (Modern influence) paragraph—cited to Simek—covering works of art depicting valkyries seems lengthy. The article of course is written in the English language; many of the listed artworks are German or Austrian, which might reflect Rudolf Simek's background or, perhaps merely illustrates a geographical concentration of creative talent. Regardless, the language distinction is striking, catching the eye and giving an impression of a lengthier list. I propose pruning the list to include only key works. The unenviable task of determining relative importance of one piece of art over another, I happily leave up to you.

• "Scholarly theories have been produced about whether". You use passive voice, or sometimes implied passive, as in this example. Often, you will improve a sentence by rewriting it to use active voice.

Your article is essentially well written and presented. Word selection and sentence construction are generally sound, but slight adjustments may enhance the flow and impact of your work. An experienced copy editor could further improve and polish your already excellent work. Best, –Whitehorse1 16:42, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

---

Not sure where to put this, but I came across Wikipedia's copy editing guide through that link you gave. It says that "titles of works of art, literature, etc., should be italicized rather than in quotation marks", rest at WP:COPYEDIT. Does this mean that the paintings and other works of art should be in italics? Holt (T•C) 18:32, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

I'll look into it and get back to you shortly. Whitehorse1 20:56, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Okay, great. I'll be back after I've slept, so there's no rush. Holt (T•C) 22:02, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Short answer: Yes.

Long answer: By unanimous decree of current guidelines^*, and long-settled, italics are used for titles of works of literature and art such as books and paintings – on canvas or ceiling, long poems, and albums or song cycles; quotation marks are used for titles of individual songs or short poems. For 'items of middling length' you can choose the method of formatting appropriate to the context. For example, the formatting of Die Walküre (a part of the operatic tetralogy Der Ring des Nibelungen), might be different when discussed on its own, compared with when it is discussed alongside and as a component of Der Ring des Nibelungen. Names of statues, once—like fountains—a point of confusion, should be italicized.
^*Manual of Style guideline and its three sibling guidelines (MoS (titles), MoS (text formatting), MoS (music)).
Whitehorse1 03:16, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Alright, thanks for investigating. Apparently it is a bit like Bloodofox said, that it is "an issue of user discretion." I'd leave the quotation marks when it comes to the paintings etc. I'll put quotation marks around Die Walküre here. I wish to discuss the "Modern influence" section, but we'll do that in the peer review before FAC. Holt (T•C) 07:29, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

To a degree, yep. I think user discretion is mainly for text items of medium length (the opera point was my interpretation, but seemed reasonable enough), while artworks are always italicized. Since there're several works of art, the big chunk of italic text won't look great… but it seems WP is firm on the typeface for them. On a different topic, the visual arts wikiproject's MoS has useful recommendations on describing works and resources for details like dates. –Whitehorse1 15:44, 9 February 2009 (UTC)