From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Good article Dagr has been listed as one of the Philosophy and religion good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
October 6, 2008 Good article nominee Listed
WikiProject Norse history and culture (Rated GA-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Norse history and culture, a WikiProject related to all activities of the North Germanic peoples, both in Scandinavia and abroad, prior to the formation of the Kalmar Union in 1397. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
 GA  This article has been rated as GA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Mythology (Rated GA-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is supported by WikiProject Mythology. This project provides a central approach to Mythology-related subjects on Wikipedia. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the WikiProject page for more details.
 GA  This article has been rated as GA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Dangi Redirect[edit]

Currently, Dangi redirects to here. Is there a reason for this? - Beetle B. 00:47, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Not as far as I know. If you want to write something else at Dangi just go right ahead. Haukur 09:07, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

GA Review[edit]

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)