Talk:Valhalla/GA1

GA Review

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

   The first sentence is too long—please enforce onto the sentence a mayhem of pain as your cutting edge slices it into two entities mere dwarfs of the former giant. In section Helgakviða Hundingsbana II, in the first paragraph under the quote, you should use emdash (—) instead of a hyphen (-), when using a vertical line as punctuation. While we mention the matter, the page listings in references are supposed to have an endash (–) (more info at WP:DASH. In the sentence "Helgi awakens, stating that he must and "ride along..." I believe the "and" is not nessesary.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   Are there no theories concerning Valhalla?

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   Placing on hold until the issues have been resolved. Otherwise a very well written article. Arsenikk ^(talk) 16:38, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the review! I believe I've fixed your the problems you've pointed out. You are welcome to fix these dash issues on sight, as it would save us a step. I have yet to encounter any particularly notable theories, though there are similarities to both Heorot and the Temple at Uppsala, which I've linked to in the "see also" section for now. :bloodofox: (talk) 04:31, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Then the article is passed as a Good Article. Congratulations! Arsenikk ^(talk) 11:50, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Wonderful, thanks again! :bloodofox: (talk) 17:22, 17 September 2008 (UTC)