Talk:Södermanland Runic Inscription 113/GA1

From WikiProjectMed
Jump to navigation Jump to search

GA Review

GA toolbox
Reviewing

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

Reviewer: Speatle (talk · contribs) 15:10, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I’ll review this soon. Note: I recently was renamed to Blueskiesdry, so don’t be surprised if that name shows up.

Comments

There’s not really much to complain about in this article, except for a couple things.

Þeir settu stein, synir Þorketils ok Folku, hér, fǫður ok móður eptir. Gerðu drengila.” Is this really necessary? Why not just the English translation?

@Speatle: Basically, stone inscriptions use a lot of abbreviations, spelling variations, and so on. It's a level of special knowledge that even people that have learned Old Norse don't understand. It's similar to scribal abbreviations in Old English: If we were quoting, say, Sir Gawaine and the Green Knight, we'd use the standardised text, but if we were talking specifically about the document that records it, we'd need to quote it properly, then give the rectified text.
It's arguable, but I'd say it's probably worth it. It seems to be standard procedure for other Runic Inscription articles, anyway. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 7.9% of all FPs 17:27, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Review

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
  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 and other media, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:

Movement?

@Adam Cuerden and Blueskiesdry: Any movement likely on this review? It's been a few months, happy to pick it up if you both wish. Amitchell125 (talk) 09:09, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Amitchell125: I can't speak for Bluesky, though they haven't edited in a month and a half according to their contributions. It might not be the worst idea. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 8.1% of all FPs 12:38, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Adam Cuerden: This editor has been around for only a few months, let's give them a day or so, and then I'll pick it up for you if there's no reply. Amitchell125 (talk) 17:02, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That's fair. I'm quite happy for Blueskies to do it, just don't know if they're still here. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 8.1% of all FPs 17:41, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. Sorry for the wait. I’ve kinda lost WP motivation recently. You can take it if you wish @Amitchell125, so I can slowly ease myself back into the swing of things. blueskiesdry… (cloudy contribs…) 15:22, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No worries, thanks for replying. Regards, Amitchell125 (talk) 15:27, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Review comments from Amitchell125

Lead section / infobox

  • Sö 113 should be explained, for example to something like ‘also known as Sö 113’.
  • Link Stenkvista Parish ({{Ill|Stenkvista Parish|sv|Stenkvista socken}}); Sö 112 ({{Ill|Sö 112|sv|Södermanlands runinskrifter 112}}); Sö NOR1998;22 ({{Sö NOR1998;22|de| Runensteine_von_Kolunda#Runenstein_Sö_NOR1998;22}}).
  • Comma needed after (Sö NOR1998;22). Is there? Without the parenthetical interjection it reads "a partial runestone discovered in 1997", which wouldn't take a comma. - Adam
Understood. AM
  • Consider amending Photographed by to ‘Sö 113, photographed by’ in the caption.
Did all the above with one exception. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 8.1% of all FPs 14:30, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The lead section needs to be expanded so that it contains a summary of the text that follows, and information currently in the lead section needs to be present in either the Description or the Inscription sections (see MOS:LS for where I am coming from here).
Check this, but I think it's done. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 8.1% of all FPs 14:30, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I can't see much difference here, apologies for not being more specific, I'll give some sort of list. Amitchell125 (talk) 14:51, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
To be included in the lead:
  • the stone measures 0.9 metres (35 in) by, 0.5 metres (20 in) by 0.35 metres (14 in); it was found in 1856; it was located along with burial mounds, stone circles, monumental stones and a stone ship; it dates from 980–1015; it is made of granite; in English, the runes read: "They placed the stone here, the sons of Þorketill and Folka, in memory of father and mother. [They] made [it] valiantly.".
To be included in the text that follows the lead:
  • (the name is) commonly abbreviated to Sö 113; it is in Kolunda, Stenkvista Parish, Eskilstuna Municipality, Sweden, in the historic province of Södermanland; the runestone Sö NOR1998;22 was discovered in 1997.
Apologies for not being clearer. Amitchell125 (talk) 15:24, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I did the one direction, not the other. The information from the lead should be in the article now, but I didn't summarise things enough in the lead. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 8.1% of all FPs 15:54, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
A point I missed about the lead—there's no need for it have citations, as the points being cited are not controversial. Amitchell125 (talk) 17:04, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Amitchell125: Check I have everything in before I go through and carefully start making sure all the references jump to the article proper. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 8.1% of all FPs 18:48, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I think I have it. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 8.1% of all FPs 19:01, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Description

  • from around the end – amend to something like ‘dating from around the end’ to improve the prose.
  • It probably stood – ‘The runestone probably stood’ is better imo.
  • Link runestone; Latin; Old Norse. "Runestone" is linked in the lead, would you like it linked again?
See my comment below. AM
  • Readers may not be entirely clear about the meaning of rune band. It has no obvious link and so could do with a brief explanation. I've done so, but didn't source it
  • rune stone or Runestone – you need to be consistent.
  • In the caption, amend Photographed in 2012 to something like ‘The runestone, photographed in 2012’.

This SHOULD all be done, except for linking "runestone", as it's linked in the lead. Happy to link it again, but I thought that was discouraged. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 8.1% of all FPs 14:34, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No the opposite is true. MOS:BUILD is easily misinterpreted, but you are generally expected to link once in the text of the article (i.e. in the text that follows the lead section). Amitchell125 (talk) 14:55, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 8.1% of all FPs 19:33, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Inscription

  • The inscription should not be wriiten in bold (see MOS:NOBOLD).
  • themselves is a redundant word here, and should be removed.
  • (They) made (it) valiantly. I believe in Wikipedia articles, the brackets here should be square (see MOS:PMC).
I tweaked the language to "each rune" instead of "the runes themselves", as I'm worried it'll be read as a collective measurement, or, worse, the length of a rune band, if I just say "the runes", and the orientation of the rune bands is such that it's sort of a width measurement if you're looking at the stone. I suppose I could say "The width of each rune band" instead, your call. Otherwise done. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 8.1% of all FPs 14:36, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The text currently make good sense to me. AM

References

  • Issues with the formatting of references in this section is not dealt with at GA, but they could do with a bit of tweaking.
Are we talking {{cite web}} or? It's a little hard to know how to cite some of these resources, which aren't used much on Wikipedia as we don't have a lot of runestone articles. I largely followed the Swedish runestone articles as a model. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 8.1% of all FPs 14:39, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
{{cite web}}, and also {{cite journal}} and {{cite book}}. AM
Done. Amitchell125 (talk) 18:22, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

On hold

I'm putting the article on hold for a week until 5 September to allow time for the issues raised to be addressed. Regards, Amitchell125 (talk) 11:20, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Passing

That all looks fine to me. Passing now, congratulations. Amitchell125 (talk) 06:02, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://mdwiki.org/wiki/Talk:Södermanland_Runic_Inscription_113/GA1"