Talk:Verein für germanisches Heidentum/GA1

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

Reviewer: Vaticidalprophet (talk · contribs) 10:39, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

A solid article. I only have a few notes, mostly revolving around improving readability for a non-specialist audience:


 * Links to Völkisch movement mostly seem like they should be specifically piped to Völkisch movement for clarity. Similarly, a link to something like Heathenry (new religious movement) might be appreciated from 'universalist' in the lead, for readers who aren't necessarily familiar with the dichotomy or why VfGH rejects it.
 * Done
 * Probably worth clarifying that blót ceremonies are sacrificial. Also, is 'reinvented' the ideal word compared to more common choices like 'reconstructed'?
 * Explained blót in the lead. "Reinvention" is used in contrast to "reconstruction" in the source ("Man müsse weniger auf die vergebliche Re-Konstruktion setzen, sondern vielmehr auf die ideenreiche Re-Invention der Religion", "You have to rely less on the vain reconstruction, but rather on the conceptive reinvention of religion"). I added a few words to the article body about why they prefer this approach.
 * Consider using the lang template for German text (such as when writing the full titles of organizations). I see it's used a couple times in the article, but not consistently.
 * Added a bunch, maybe missed something.
 * "Dualist" is a little more common a phrasing than "dualistic".
 * Changed
 * The meeting was exclusively for "inclusive" Germanic neopagans, which led to discussions about what it means to be inclusive Do we have further details on such discussions?
 * Added a little. It's hard to elaborate more without WP:OR, since the source doesn't discuss the VfGH's position in particular.

I may make further comments, but these are the only clear ones at the moment. Vaticidalprophet 10:39, 27 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the review! I'll be happy to address any other concerns you have. Ffranc (talk) 11:59, 27 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks so much for your prompt replies! I've made some minor copyedits for prose quality (feel free to tweak any further) and spotchecked a few cites (checking through the cited chapters of Norse Revival) without issue. I'm happy to pass the article; it's a concise but in-depth look at the subject that doesn't need any more significant work for GA status. Vaticidalprophet 12:32, 27 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you! Ffranc (talk) 12:58, 27 June 2023 (UTC)