Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Norse mythology
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit] Norse mythology
This was nominated by user:Satanael. However he did not archive the old one correctly, so I have fixed it for him. (See Old nomination). User:Nichalp/sg 11:35, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
- Support
conditional on image wrangling: Note, I have tried to copy-edit and help out, especially by widening the story out a bit when it became too focused on a particular Scandinavian nation (e.g. conversion to Christianity was some places peaceful, some places not, some places by leader, some places not, so "more or less by force" is a statement true of some places, not others). The text looks good, IMO, although the screen does turn a bit blue with all the links. Geogre 01:58, 12 October 2005 (UTC)- I agree with nixie that the box is a stumbling rather than starting box at present, but I also can't see that as a reason to object. I worry, personally, that it's at the extreme end of taxoboxes, where we allow the taxobox to act as a stealth portal page, but, again, that's as much as to say, "I don't like it like that." Such a statement is not a reason to object. The images don't particularly bother me. I know that low resolution monitors are still in use, particularly in public libraries around the world and public schools in the US and UK, but, since the rest of the world is making no allowances for these resolutions and wiki pages should not be in tables, I think there is a time to say that image formatting at lowest resolution is unactionable as well. Geogre 00:27, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
IComment, I think the topic navagation box is overkill, is there any way more of these could be incorporated into the text- or the table shortened?--nixie 03:29, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
- Support as it is now. Much improved article indeed. Filiocht | The kettle's on 11:05, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
object one of the images as a really long description. Please shorten it. User:Nichalp/sg 15:08, 12 October 2005 (UTC)- Done. →Raul654 00:41, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
- Object. The references need to be trimmed (and actually placed under the header "references"). I count 24 separate sources right now, which is wholly unreasonable for such a general article. I don't know what the feeling is on "Further reading", but if that's all most of those books are, then they should at least be labeled apropriately. The information contained can't possibly require that many books. The image layout is just really bad right now and the infobox is not acceptable by any standard. It's merely a "list of..." disguised as a template. Such a creation can't possibly pass as a reasonable demand from any WikiProject. And then there's the Thor image caption... / Peter Isotalo 01:05, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
- If they have, in fact, been used as references, then they need to be listed as such. There is no limit; cite your sources means all of them, IMHO. Filiocht | The kettle's on 07:24, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
- The references are supposed to be there to make the article easily verifiable, not to be a record of the article authors' reading habits. There is such a thing as over-usage of references. / Peter Isotalo 11:24, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
- I'm afraid I have to disagree; not easily verifiable, just verifiable. And it is precisely for this reason that I believe that all works that were used to verify information should be listed. Otherwise, some information may not be verifiable from the references given. If any of the works listed under References were not used by the authors as sources for the information in the article, then they should be removed. However, it is my opinion that all references actually used should be listed, regardless of how many there are. Filiocht | The kettle's on 11:37, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
- If all those sources are actually required to reference everything in the article, then I'd like to see them properly attributed with footnotes and/or inline citations. If there are this many references to support a relativly short article (if you remove the reference section itself and the gigantic list-of-links-template, there really isn't all that much material left) then I feel I'm justified to suspect that a lot of content is referenced with more than once source, which is completely uncalled for. / Peter Isotalo 18:58, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
- I'm afraid I have to disagree; not easily verifiable, just verifiable. And it is precisely for this reason that I believe that all works that were used to verify information should be listed. Otherwise, some information may not be verifiable from the references given. If any of the works listed under References were not used by the authors as sources for the information in the article, then they should be removed. However, it is my opinion that all references actually used should be listed, regardless of how many there are. Filiocht | The kettle's on 11:37, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
- The references are supposed to be there to make the article easily verifiable, not to be a record of the article authors' reading habits. There is such a thing as over-usage of references. / Peter Isotalo 11:24, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
- If they have, in fact, been used as references, then they need to be listed as such. There is no limit; cite your sources means all of them, IMHO. Filiocht | The kettle's on 07:24, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
- Weak object as I am concerned about setting a precedent for this kind of image crowding.
The caption on the Thor image is a place for improvement, can it be shortened significantly?The drowning image has some editorializing that strikes an odd tone for me. On a side note, please do not remove any sources that have actually been used as references for the article, but do place any books that duplicate information in a book already refrenced in a "Further reading" section or remove it. Surely between Davidson and de Vries most of the information in the article can be sourced.Oh, and that reminds me. Jan de Vries' middle name is not "de". He should be listed as "de Vries, Jan". I'll go fix that.Jkelly 00:00, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
- Object. Good images, poorly used. The image of Thor has a very long caption that should be merged into the text. The caption for the image should be as short and to the point as possible. "This is Thor" would be better than what's there, and which causes a huge gap to appear in the text. The other images aligned neatly on the right give it a static appearance, should be alternated left align, right align. The runestone image is way too big. The infobox template is also too big and breaks the text. There has to be a better way of doing it, but is it even necessary? I'll look closer at the text when these glaring problems are fixed. Rossrs 00:58, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
- Object. This is still something a mess and I'd prefer to fix the underlying articles before improving the central one. (I'm currently working on Höðr.) As an aside I see nothing wrong with having a lot of works listed as sources and further reading, though maybe they should eventually be split off into a separate article à la Race and intelligence. Personally I think the verifiability objective is something of a chimera and that the most important rôle of those sections is to give the reader an idea of what the standard works in the field are. - Haukur Þorgeirsson 17:43, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
- Weak Object My problem with the article is the crowed images and the Topics in Norse mythology box. Other than that I'd say its great. -Haon 22:05, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
Expansion: I've checked out the Norwegian and Swedish articles ad I would say that they are pretty good, especially the Swedish one as it has a lot of info that the English one can implement. I suggest we adapt the info from the Swedish article that the English one doesn't have, into the English article. In that way the info will be greatly expanded, and the image and infobox issues won't be as pressing as it is. I'd do it right now if I could, but even though I'm Norwegian I can't read Swedish all that well. So if anyone knows Swedish, please read through both articles and implement the info that the English article doesn't have into the Swedish one. Satanael 11:30, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
