This review is transcluded from Talk:Dagr/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Not as good as the other two I reviewed today, due to some prose issues. though well within the bounds of GA. I've done a few copyedits to fix the major problems, and think it should be fine now, but I'd suggest a good copyedit.
As all criteria other than the minor prose issues met, I don't think it's necessary to relist them here. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 01:45, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
The theories section is not very well written. The sentences are way too logn and convoluted and both sentences contain weasel phrasings "it has been theorised" etc. I would expect such problems to be taken care of during the GA review process.·Maunus·ƛ· 10:10, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
It's a dictionary entry, and as a result it's a general survey. Further information can be gained by consulting the sources provided. These theories are often not limited to a single person. :bloodofox: (talk) 10:20, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
They still need to be sourced, as it is now it could be anyones' theories. And I don't know what you mean with a dictionary entry - this is an encyclopedia wiktionary is elsewhere.·Maunus·ƛ· 10:22, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
It's sourced. The source of the theory is a dictionary. The theory is shared by Otto Höfler, and partially by F.R. Schröder, and presented by Rudolf Simek. :bloodofox: (talk) 10:27, 6 October 2008 (UTC)