Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Norse mythology/archive

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

[edit] Norse mythology

This was apparently nominated at some point, but wasn't accepted. The nomination isn't where the link on the talk page says it should be, so I don't know why it failed. I think it's a great article though. Tuf-Kat 09:27, Dec 19, 2004 (UTC)

Note the timestamp. This article was apparently renominated without making a new FAC page. I would just fix it, but I don't have time now. Tuf-Kat 04:31, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
  • It has FA potential, and we might take it there this time, but at the present stage, I have to object:
    • the intro is bad. No sense of historical depth. It is a "version" of the "ancient" Germanic mythology. no sources, except for a sybillic allusion to "runes", no century is mentioned.
    • no clear explanation of the distinction, or lack of distinction, of mythology and religion. The main part of the text is clearly written from a Neo-Pagan perspective.
      • Ibn Fadlan's account of a girl in Russia who chose to die so that she could accompany her Viking lover to the afterlife — this cracks me up. such statements belong in a fanasy novel.
    • "Cultural perspectives": unwikified ramblings.
    • "Christian interaction": here, the pagan pov is most clearly visible. The whole article seems to be more about the part of the mythology that has been lost, than about the part which has been preserved, "tainted" by Christianity.
    • I have my doubts about the usefulness of the template seemingly intending to list each and every character of norse mythology. It would be more useful to have a template of just the major characters, for which there are actually substantial articles. (not an objection)
In fact, I think quite some work will have to be invested, before this reaches FA status. I think Odin, with its smaller scope, is much nearer (but I won't FAC it myself, because I contributed to it, and don't think it is quite ready either). dab (ᛏ) 10:54, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    • I think it has improved, and I withdraw most of my objections, although I am still less than enthusiastic about parts of the text. dab (ᛏ) 20:40, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Object. The TOC and the infobox overlap to create formatting hell. Though the article is informative, the prose needs a lot of work. Would need one heck of a copyedit before I'd support. Ambi 10:56, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    • I hope you guys will try to improve the page instead of just cutting it to pieces. It was even worse before I started to work on it. Dab, Ambi, I have deleted the table.--Wiglaf 11:51, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)
      • Please don't take offence at my comments - it's a good article nonetheless, and I'd like to see it get featured, but I'm a stickler for absolute quality with our FAs. I believe they should be the very best we have, so my criticisms are aimed at ironing out as many of the flaws in them so that we can get each article there. I'd be happy to help, but I'm not very knowledgeable about the subject. Ambi 12:12, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)
        • No offense taken. I am just a bit disappointed with the reception the table got (it took a lot of work), but the criticism is probably fair and just. The main problem with the page is that depending on POV, it could cover 2000 years (from Tacitus to the last faint gasps of the beliefs in my backwards country in the 19th century (yes sacrifices and legends about the gods lingered so long). It could also be restricted to the stories in the Gesta Danorum and in the Icelandic sagas, depending on POV. I stagger at the task of editing this article, but I think it deserves as many hands as possible to improve it.--Wiglaf 12:24, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)
          • I apologize if my comments seemed harsh to you -- I have no doubts you have done wonders for the article. I am also in principle ready to help address my own concerns, but this being fac, I think it's only fair to point to what I think are the sore spots. dab (ᛏ) 08:35, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)
            • No problem. I think that the article is much better now after Bishonen's editing, and I look forward to seeing yours.--Wiglaf 08:41, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)
          • Ambi, how does the table look on your screen now?--[[User:Bishonen|Bishonen(talk)]] 13:36, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)
            • The table is now fixed, thank you. Copyedits have much improved the prose, but it could still do with another go over. Ambi 01:48, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Object. I think this would make a fine featured article (disagree extensively with dab's objections), with a scholarly perspective yet accessibly presented, but a couple of several things need to be fixed first. 1.) The "Cultural perspective" paragraph, before the subsections, is odd (agree with dab on that one). It's very tenuously connected with Norse mythology--it is in fact a quarrel with a minor point in a sub-section of the previous section, so it's oddly placed, too. I think most of it should just go, while the Tollund man argument could be merged (shortened!) with previous section. 2.) Very fully referenced, as a subject like this has a right to be, and I appreciate the annotations to the secondary sources. But, I'll say it so Taxman can have a break: can we have the "Bibliography" divided into "References" (=actually used for the article) and "Further reading", please? It seems to have both together, for instance I can't believe the Rydberg reference has been used for info in the article, although it is indeed interesting further reading (of a literary nature). And somebody please rescue the "Edda" references :-( under "Primary sources".--[[User:Bishonen|Bishonen (talk)]] 12:06, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)
hm, with what exactly do you extensively disagree? because I rather agree with what you say. I guess my main gripe with the article is that it just states, "it's like that" instead of giving a clear account of what is known from medieval texts, and what is inferred from Tacitus, Tollund man and ship burials. dab (ᛏ) 11:16, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I spoke thoughtlessly, we are indeed in substantial agreement. I hope the people who provided the references are still around, or somebody else who can deal with them--can you? I see that they need subdividing, but it would take a specialist to see how.--Bishonen 17:31, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • I'm an avid fan of Norse myth. It does seem to be lacking the influences section. What influenced the Norse, and who did the Norse influence before modern times. Many elements of Classical, Norse, Celtic and Russian mythologies overlap, who influenced who? If that were fixed I'd support.--ZayZayEM 02:05, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I am strongly against such a section because firstly Celtic and Slavic mythologies were related to Norse mythology. Secondly, concerning Norse-Slavic interaction, we're hindered by the fact that so little is known about Slavic mythology at the time. Concerning Celtic-Norse it is a matter of Celtic-Germanic interaction and the only theory I know is one where Odin has Celtic origins but that one is also pretty speculative. Joseph Campbell has written some about Norse influences on Amerindian mythology and vice versa, but he consents that it is speculative as well.--Wiglaf 11:34, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I agree with Wiglaf here. It would be nice to know more about the influences, but we don't. It would be pure speculation. Thus, the concern is not addressable. Our knowledge of Germanic mythology itself is sketchy, and that of Slavic mythology is practically non-existent. dab (ᛏ) 12:04, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Me, too. We barely know for certain what the early beliefs were (imagine having to rely upon Josephus for a fair account of Christianity and you get what it's like relying on Tacitus for the early Germans), and we're not even sure we're sure of what they believed at their height. These societies were not literate in their pagan era, and the people who brought writing were not interested in preservation, so asking something like "who influenced them" takes us back to possibly 200 BC and fantasy. Geogre 12:38, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

I believe that the article looks much better now. There are, however, some links that lead to non-existent articles, and some who just redirect to a more general article, but I still think it looks great. It has some great pictures as well. But the "Kings and heroes" and the "the future" sections could improve a little. Some of the articles that are linked to that page are also quite naked, and could use a little improvement. But I do believe that this article can reach FA status, very possible indeed. Satanael 11:50, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

I suggest that you first announce it on Wikipedia:Peer review so that people can comment on it first.--Wiglaf 11:58, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose – This article has style problems in lower resolutions. 1) In 800x600, Thor.jpg is responsible for pushing sectional [edit] much lower than necessary. I suggest you add this image under =cosmology=. 2) Bad placement of images. The images should not shear headings, =Völuspá:=, =Centres of faith= are guilty of this. midwinterblot.jpg should be brought under =Human sacrifice=. 3) The ToC is granulated. Headings should be as terse as possible and subheadings minimal. 2.2.1 & 2.2.2 * 6.1 should be removed. User:Nichalp/sg 12:47, 1 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)

Comment, 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)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../f/e/a/Wikipedia%7EFeatured_article_candidates_Norse_mythology_archive_fc3f.html"