Talk:Rällinge statuette/GA1

GA Review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Yakikaki (talk · contribs) 21:50, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'll be happy to do this review, and will try to start it tomorrow. Yakikaki (talk) 21:50, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

GA review

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

This is a fine article, I'm happy to see this level of writing and seriousness on a Swedish-themed article. It's well on it's way to GA status.

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
See my notes below
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):
The statuette is made of bronze and has been dated to the late Viking Age, around the year 1000. This needs an inline citation.
Added
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.:
It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Overall:
Pass/Fail:
It's almost there, just a few issues that need to be addressed.

Detailed notes

Cover:

I know it is almost impossible to read but there seems to be a bit more info about the acquisition of the statuette in the source you provided, including a note that the museum appears to have payed 20 crowns (!) for it at the time. Perhaps you could add a few words about the acquisition?
Deciphered and added
In the last section, the last paragraph, there is mention of another three phallic statuettes but it’s not clear whether they are from the same time (approximately), perhaps you could add something about this as well? I imagine the point is that they’re all from about the same time so they indicate there was some kind of phallic thing going on in Södermanland (I’m not surprised, having lived in Uppland a lot myself.)
Added "from the Iron Age"; the article hints at migration or Vendel era, but with reservations, and I think it would be out of scope to go into too much detail here.

Prose:

Whenever using measurements, add a convert template.
Added
Why is ”ithyphalic” in italics? Also consider putting the explanation of the term, which you’ve wisely inserted under the “Discovery and description” heading, already in the lead. You could even skip ithyphallic in the lead and simply right “depicted with an erect penis” there, it’s more straightforward (pun intended).
See Wikipedia:Foreign words. I removed the word from the lead and added a short description.
The earliest suggestion for the figure's identity is that of the god Freyr. Wouldn’t “was that it is” be more appropriate here?
Changed
The statuette has no clear attributes from Freyr's myths, such as the god's sword, ship or boar. Would “The figure does not display any of the known attributes associated with Freyr” be a better way of formulating this?
Changed into "The figure does not display any of the known attributes of Freyr from his myths", since it does have the attribute known from Adam of Bremen
The historian of religions Olof Sundqvist writes that the statuette could depict Freyr in his capacity as a model for kings This sentence is a bit unwieldly, consider rewording it.
Tried a different variation, don't know if it's better
The material relating to Freyr associates him with battle and fertility May I suggest simplifying this to “Freyr was associated with battle and fertility”?
Changed
“Other candidates” sounds a bit like we’re reading about a presidential election here… Maybe “Other theories” or “Other attempts at identification” or something along those lines could be better?
Changed to "Other theories"
Although he supports an identification with Freyr, the Norse studies scholar Richard Perkins writes that the Rällinge statuette could depict Thor, who blows in his beard to create wind. Alternatively, it could depict Freyr, who in some tradition might have been attributed with the same ability. This is a bit back and forth, consider if you can reformulate it in a more succinct way.
Rewritten, hopefully better

Kind regards, Yakikaki (talk) 11:11, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot for taking on the review so quickly and for the good suggestions! Ffranc (talk) 14:14, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your prompt and good replies, I have found nothing else that needs addressing. Going to pass it now. Yakikaki (talk) 14:27, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.