Talk:Elf/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Farang Rak Tham (talk · contribs) 22:31, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Introduction and limitations

Before starting this review, I'd like to state for the record that this is only my second GA assessment. That said, my previous assessment was well-received by other editors not involved.

I used to be a big fan of fantasy literature, including Tolkien and others, so this nomination came as a pleasant surprise.--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 22:31, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Overview

• Prose: The lead has serious copyright issues. Large parts are copied from this source, as evidenced here.

[That last link isn't working for me, and I can't find the lead text at the powercoin.it link given. Anyway, do not fear! I wrote the header myself a few years ago. It was a gradual process, but this is the main edit: Special:PermanentLink/606650864. Any similarities elsewhere are because other people have taken the text from Wikipedia, as is their right. I do recognise that the header does need work though in relation to the suggestions below. Alarichall (talk) 09:59, 3 October 2017 (UTC)]

Alright, I was not aware. Who copied which is always a major problem on Wikipedia articles, so i am glad you settled this.--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 10:45, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

The lead needs to be rewritten almost completely. As for the main body of the article, this is professional scholarship, but it is often too technical and hard to follow for lay people.

Hopefully it's now OK! But it's not perfect: it can be hard to discuss some of the more technical stuff. Alarichall (talk) 21:20, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

The section Elf#Relationship to Christian cosmologies seems out of place: if you intend to indicate a possible bias in works about elves, maybe this should be more clearly mentioned in the first paragraph of this section; if you merely intend to provide a history of literature about elves, then you should integrate this section with the main timeline in the following sections.

[Good point. I've changed the beginning of the section to make its notability clearer. I might move it up to the beginning of the article too, as it's a conceptual/historiographical section whereas everything else is based on surveying the evidence. Alarichall (talk) 11:02, 3 October 2017 (UTC)]

The website that was copied is down per 27 September 2017 22:00. I am not sure whether this is coincidence, but I'd still recommend you rewrite the lead fully.--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 23:43, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

• MOS: Needs some tweaking. Lead is irregular. List at Elf#Equivalents in non-Germanic traditions needs to be rewritten as prose per Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Embedded lists.

I've redone the header, which is now hopefully a concise summary of the article. I left one reference in because it's to an article which actually discusses how the header should be phrased (and therefore influenced the earlier version of the header). Is this OK? It's probaby quite an unusual situation. Alarichall (talk) 21:20, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

1. References layout: There is a reference missing here. There are two duplicate citations, which can be identified using this website.
2. Reliable sources: Some references have been published by the nominator himself, but their notability can be established, as they are frequently cited by other works in the field, and no other editor has indicated WP:UNDUE yet, counting from 2014. No violation of WP:COI was found.
3. Original research: I don't think there is any original research here, but there are many paragraphs which are not referenced, probably out of oversight or fear of redundant citing. Citations should be provided in these sections. There is a sentence about the size of elves which has been challenged as explained here, and should be removed unless confirmed by reliable secondary sources.

I fixed the reference that gave an error, and the references layout criterion has now passed.--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 19:49, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks Farang Rak Tham! Alarichall (talk) 10:49, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

• Broadness: seems to cover almost everything. What i did notice is that current Icelandic beliefs are covered only briefly, even though these beliefs have often been subject of news reports. It is of significant interest, since it shows that beliefs in elves continue until this day, even in Europe, and have even led to the establishment of an "Elf School".

[Good point. I've put a 'see also' tag on the Scandinavia section directing people the fulsome entry on this matter (Huldufólk). I might put a bit more into the elves article itself too though. Alarichall (talk) 11:23, 3 October 2017 (UTC)]

Great!--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 13:22, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

1. Focus: generally the article is focused, though a little too large. Some parts are too detailed. I think this okay though.
2. Neutral: Different, sometimes conflicting opinions are described in several sections, which is good. However, there is some in-universe writing now and then, e.i. the article now and then loses its skeptical distance.
3. Stable: article is stable.
4. Pics: Pics are relevant and tagged.

Detailed review per section

• The form of English used is British. Indicate this with a template just before the lead text starts, so future editors keep on writing in British English for consistency. [Done. Alarichall (talk) 09:52, 30 September 2017 (UTC)]
• There are many duplicate wikilinks in the main body of article, that is Old English, Wið færstice, Aos Sí, fairies, etc. Use this tool to identify them.

• On the other hand, there are also many terms that lay people would not know. You need to check and wikilink some. Below I have identified a few, but not comprehensively.

Lead

• see Prose above.

* Reference citations and the lengthy quote in the lead should be integrated in the main body of the article and removed from the lead. The lead should be rewritten as a complete summary of the article per WP:LEAD.

Done. See comments above. Alarichall (talk) 21:25, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

* The two references in the chart should be formatted as references, rather than mentioned inline.

Etymology

• Wikilink cognate. First time, explain shortly inline.
• "For example, Alaric Hall, noting that the cognates..." Sentence is too complex, split or simplify.

[Done. Alarichall (talk) 17:41, 5 October 2017 (UTC)]

Elves in names

• For improved clarity, use proper names in the section title
• Wikilink Celts. Not everyone knows who they were, although I don't think you need to explain inline.
• "The most famous such name is Alboin": grammar is unusual. Is this British grammar?
• "It is generally agreed that these names indicate": these names indicate is redundant. Cut out.
• " Other words for supernatural beings...": I am not following. Please simplify.
• "This seems to have led people to associate legendary heroes called Álfr with elves." Reference has been omitted or has accidentally been moved. If no source can be found, delete it.

[Done! To me, "The most famous such name is Alboin" is formal English rather than specifically British English. But maybe it is just us who would say it... Anyway, I rephrased. Alarichall (talk) 17:33, 5 October 2017 (UTC)]

Great work!--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 11:16, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

Relationship to Christian cosmologies

• See above, under prose.
• Wikilink Christian cosmology.
• "Identifying elves..." don't bold any text apart from synonyms of the title in the lead. See Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Text formatting#Boldface.
• "As with the Irish Aos Sí, beliefs in elves have, therefore, been a part of Christian cultures throughout their recorded history": Remove their, it is confusing. Therefore doesn't need the commas.
• "(though of course there are no rigid distinctions between these)": redundant or WP:EDITORIAL. Remove.

*  "incubi": shortly gloss or explain inline.
* "confessions by people accused of witchcraft to encounters with elves" is confusing. Split into several sentences, or cut out detail.
* "It is even possible that stories were sometimes told from this perspective to subvert the dominance of the Church." even is out of place here, since this is a new line of thought altogether.
* Is "(if unusual)" mentioned in the cited source? If not, remove per WP:EDITORIAL.
* "...which lists elves among the monstrous races...": how is that not demonizing elves? Rephrase.

[I've implemented these changes or otherwise removed the problems in the course of rewriting this section. Thanks! Alarichall (talk) 11:00, 3 October 2017 (UTC)]

And nicely done!--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 11:13, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Elves in medieval texts and post-medieval folk-belief

• Move introductory paragraphs to main lead.

Old English

*"But there is good evidence..." This paragraph has many problems. For one, there are contrasting views in here, but this is not indicated clearly.

* "...could cause illness": rephrase for encyclopedic tone, we are talking about a belief here.

• "...recent scholarship suggests Anglo-Saxon elves...were like people." Same here.

* "...recent scholarship..." start a new sentence or add a conjunction.
*"This fits well with the use of Old English ælf..." Split or simplify.

[Done. As mentioned below, I reorganised this entirely, so I hope it's improved! Alarichall (talk) 21:52, 2 October 2017 (UTC)]

Certainly!--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 10:55, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Middle English

* "elf-beliefs": odd word, replace.

• "arcane wisdom of alchemy": you might want to rephrase this for neutrality, might get the attention of the anti-quack gestapo on the English Wikipedia.

* "...as in Geoffrey Chaucer's satirical": I don't believe satirical is a noun. Rephrase .
* "...where the title character sets out in quest of the 'elf-queen', who dwells in the 'countree of the Faerie'...": use double quotes instead per Manual of Style.

[Done. Alarichall (talk) 21:52, 2 October 2017 (UTC)]

Post-medieval folk belief in Britain

* "The similarities...are close." Seems an unusual expression. Find an alternative.
* "The noun elf-shot is first attested in a Scots poem"... You need to connect this with the scholarship on elf-shot in the Old English section .

[Done. Moving the elf-shot stuff led me to reorganise the medieval English section entirely. I *hope* it's now clearer! Alarichall (talk) 21:48, 2 October 2017 (UTC)]

It certainly looks much better, and I think also makes for a more interesting read. I have to reread some sections here, but it looks great.--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 11:00, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Old Norse texts

Expand or delete section.

[Done. Alarichall (talk) 13:42, 1 October 2017 (UTC)]

Mythological texts

*Explain a little bit inline what type of work the Elucidarius is.
*"alliterating formulaic collocation": too technical. Expand or rephrase.
* "or sometimes even of not distinguishing between the two groups." Fix grammar.
* "There are hints that Freyr was associated with elves.." Who's Freyr? I only know Friday is named after her, and even about that I am not certain.
* "...and even that Snorri invented the Vanir": how does this prove that they are similar to álfar? Expand.
* "A kenning for the sun": What in Freyr's name is a kenning? Please explain.
* "influenced by romance": you need to expand on the word romance as this can mean many things.
* "and in later traditions": you need to start a new sentence here, to simplify the content.

[Thanks: all good points! Done. BTW, Friday takes its name from the Anglo-Saxon equivalent of Frigg. Poor Freyr doesn't have any days named after him. Alarichall (talk) 13:39, 1 October 2017 (UTC)]

Ah, i see. Nice editing work. Send Frigg my regards, and thanks for the correction!--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 19:34, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

Other sources

* This section contains primary sources. With regard to the content supported by primary sources, you should include secondary sources to prove this material is relevant per WP:WEIGHT.
* "'In the more realistic Sagas of Icelanders, Bishops' Sagas, and Sturlunga saga, álfar are rare. When seen, they are distant." If this is a quote, you need to attribute it inline, or paraphrase instead.

[The text is in quotations marks, followed by a reference showing where the quotation is from, so I would have said that it did have an inline attribution. Do you mean that the name of the author needs to be mentioned in the main text? This seems unnecessary to me. Anyway, I've paraphrased it instead. Alarichall (talk) 12:33, 1 October 2017 (UTC)]

Okay. It is my understanding of WP:INTEXT that mentioning the author within the sentence is required if you are quoting. But anyway, you have fixed it now.--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 19:34, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

* "These texts include a fleeting mention..." and next paragraph "The Kings' sagas include a rather elliptical account..." seem trivial. Rephrase or remove.

[I've rephrased to explain why, though brief, these are notable. The references that are already there explain this so no extra references needed. Alarichall (talk) 12:33, 1 October 2017 (UTC)]

Yes, you already fixed this. Nice work.--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 19:34, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

* "going for a poo" rephrase in encyclopedic tone, if you are keeping the content, that is.

[Yeah, I always struggled with this. Something really scientific like 'going away to excrete' sounds silly, but translations that represent the colloquial tone of the original like 'going for a shit' sound obscene. I've now tried 'going to the toilet', although this is rather anachronistic. Alarichall (talk) 12:33, 1 October 2017 (UTC)]

Er, i guess we'll just stick to the toilet, then. Lol.--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 19:34, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

Post-medieval developments

Support by sources or remove.

[Yeah, moveover this is all duplicated later in the Scandinavian section. I've deleted it and will consider whether the material in the article could be organised a bit better. Alarichall (talk) 17:36, 30 September 2017 (UTC)]

Conclusion of 25 September

I will continue the detailed review after your response. Please note that there are two dead links in the article: in the section Elf#England and Germany, the link http://dictionary.oed.com/cgi/entry/50073178 is dead,   and in Elf#Mythological texts the link to http://heathen.vuya.net/sites/default/files/1973%20Of%20Elves%20and%20Dwarves%20(Motz).pdf is dead.

I have now adjusted the url myself.--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 19:34, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks! Alarichall (talk) 21:25, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

I will keep the GA Progress updated below.--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 22:31, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Medieval and early modern German texts

* "Old High German alp is attested": The Old High German word...

[Done. Alarichall (talk) 18:35, 30 September 2017 (UTC)]

* "nature-god or -demon...": use double quotes per MOS:QUOTE. Delink nightmare per MOS:LWQ, as this is wikilinked elsewhere. Authors should be mentioned inline. Also, "nature-god or -demon" doesn't need hyphens. I am also wondering whether "als Nachtmahr" would be better translated as "as nightmare", leaving out the the, as a state of being, but I would have to access the full German quote to confirm that.
:: [I changed the translation of 'Naturgott oder -dämon' to 'Nature-god or nature-demon' ('nature god or demon' would not indicate that 'nature' is compounded not only with 'god' but also 'demon'. Alarichall (talk) 18:35, 30 September 2017 (UTC)]

'als Nachtmahr' definitely denotes a kind of supernatural being, not a bad dream. I changed the English translation to 'the mare' to try and remove the ambiguity (though some readers may think 'the mare' is a kind of horse, so it's still not ideal. It's always hard talking about the mare in modern English. Alarichall (talk) 18:35, 30 September 2017 (UTC)]

The article will always be a bit technical due to the field of scholarship, but i think you have clarified things to a great extent.--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 20:27, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

*"occurs so often it would appear to be proverbial": simplify "would appear to be" to "seems"

[I would like to, but this is a quotation, and I'm not very confident with the primary evidence here so I'd rather leave the quotation as it is than paraphrase it and accidentally alter the sense. Alarichall (talk) 18:35, 30 September 2017 (UTC)]

Okay.--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 20:27, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

* "die elben/der alp trieget mich" (the elves/elf is/are deceiving me)': quotes should be on both sides, and you might want to italicize the German per Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Foreign-language quotations. In Elf/elves the two words should be swapped.

[Again, this is a quotation, so we can't mess around with it, and I'd prefer not to paraphrase it. Alarichall (talk) 18:35, 30 September 2017 (UTC).]

::: Okay, but are/is should match plural/singular. This problem only occurs in the translation.--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 20:27, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
* "and are often associated with the mare." Split off in a separate sentence.

[I just rewrote the material instead. Alarichall (talk) 18:35, 30 September 2017 (UTC)]

*"in later medieval prayers": move to start of sentence.

[Done. Alarichall (talk) 18:35, 30 September 2017 (UTC)]

* Delink mare in poem.

[Done. Alarichall (talk) 18:35, 30 September 2017 (UTC)]

* "elves are attested to": rephrase, i would use described by or depicted by.

[Done. Alarichall (talk) 18:35, 30 September 2017 (UTC)]

* "Elves in German tradition": move however forward.

[I just rewrote the material instead. Alarichall (talk) 18:35, 30 September 2017 (UTC)]

*"Von den elben virt entsehen": format per policy cited above, and per MOS:BQ you need to replace the pipes (|) with / or //.

[Done. Alarichall (talk) 18:35, 30 September 2017 (UTC)]

Great, don't forget to italicize the German quotes.--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 20:27, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

*"As in earlier English, elbe is attested translating words for nymphs": confusing, rephrase.

[Done. Alarichall (talk) 18:35, 30 September 2017 (UTC)]

* Choose either dwarfs or dwarves as plural.

[Done. Alarichall (talk) 18:35, 30 September 2017 (UTC)]

*"This incubus motif recurs in the Þiðreks saga version of the parentage of Hagen (ON Högni), who was the product of his mother Oda being impregnated by an elf (ON álfr) while she lay in bed": simplify or split, and you might have to expand on the incubus motif inline, to explain what it is briefly .

[I just rewrote the material instead. Alarichall (talk) 18:35, 30 September 2017 (UTC)]

* the word for 'nightmare': double quotes.

[done. Alarichall (talk) 18:35, 30 September 2017 (UTC)]

Early modern ballads

* Much unsourced content, better source it or remove it.
*"Elves have a prominent place...": split.

• "Because they were learned by heart, they sometimes mention elves when that term had become archaic in everyday usage, and have played a major role in transmitting traditional ideas about elves in post-medieval cultures." Too much content packed in one sentence. You need to go slower.
• Wikilink merman.

[Done. Alarichall (talk) 12:26, 30 September 2017 (UTC)]

Post-medieval conceptions of elves

• Move summary to lead.

England and Germany

*"in elite culture": specify whether you mean literature, language, or something else.
*'fairy' and 'elf': remove quotes and italicize instead.

• wikilink aetiology.

* "is entirely his invention": you probably need to expand this, it is an invention as opposed to a traditional account I suppose?
*"an 'elf-lock' (tangled hair) is not caused by an elf as such": why would it be? Confusing.
*"the elves are almost as small as insects" Maybe OR. See overview. Similarly, "The influence of Shakespeare..." is not sourced either.

• "as a loan": as a loan word?

[Done. Alarichall (talk) 16:37, 30 September 2017 (UTC)]

Scandinavia

* The first paragraphs are not referenced. Source or delete.

Nicely rewritten!--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 20:27, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

*..."which was carved into buildings or other objects.[102]" Link to a url in the reference, rather than an internal wikilink.

• "On lake shores...": attribute quote inline, and remove redundant and confusing reference to Google Maps.

*"A 2006 and 2007 study on superstition by the University of Iceland’s Faculty of Social Sciences": the wikilink superstition links to seems wrong. And while you are at it, rephrase superstition, because it is not neutral.
*" Terry Gunnell stated: 'Icelanders..." Use double quotes.

[Done. Alarichall (talk) 11:44, 30 September 2017 (UTC)]

::: I hate to be fuzzy, but per WP:MOS those need to be double quotes, not single. Same holds for other quotes.--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 13:20, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

No problem. I always use single, which is common in the UK, so it's hard to break the habit when you're typing! But I've now done a general search and replace so it should now be clean. Alarichall (talk) 21:27, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

I know what you mean. The confusing part is that other Wikipedias have different rules...--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 11:27, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

Conclusion of 27 September

Almost finished. It is pretty quiet here...--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 23:43, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Equivalents in non-Germanic traditions

* rewrite in prose, see Overview above. [Done. Alarichall (talk) 10:25, 30 September 2017 (UTC)]

• "Celtic-speaking world": which countries? And is this term common in scholarship? [It is common. The issue is that although Celtic languages are spoken in France, the UK, and Ireland, they spread across national boundaries and are no longer a majority language in any country. (Similar issues arise regarding the other language-groups here.) I've rephrased to make it clear that they're spoken in north-west Europe, and added a wikilink. Alarichall (talk) 10:25, 30 September 2017 (UTC)]

Okay, great.--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 20:27, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

* "bonnes dames": change comma to and. [Fixed in the course of general rephrasing. Alarichall (talk) 10:25, 30 September 2017 (UTC)]

• "Finnic-speaking world": this is not a language family, and it does not include Estonian. Do you mean Finno-Ugric? [The Finnic languages are a language family (within the larger grouping of Finno-Ugric languages) and they do include Estonian. Alarichall (talk) 10:25, 30 September 2017 (UTC)]

Okay, sorry about that. I was unaware.--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 20:27, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

* show that the example of Japan is considered notable by citing a secondary source, or remove it.  [Done. Alarichall (talk) 10:25, 30 September 2017 (UTC).]

You found a reference in ten minutes. Impressive.--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 20:27, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

* " The beings most similar to elves..." refers to a Dutch translation of an article of you, which is already cited elsewhere in the article. Better cut out the Dutch translation, since the English original presumably supports the content as well, and English should be preferred on the English Wikipedia.

[The published version is the Dutch one. The English text, while available online and so linked from the bibliography, has not been formally published, so it's appropriate to cite the Dutch publication. Alarichall (talk) 10:25, 30 September 2017 (UTC)]

:: I understand that the magazine Kelten is scholarly in nature. Great, but better remove the English version then.--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 20:27, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

Modern popular culture

* "With industrialisation and mass education...": move to main lead on top.
* 'A Visit from St. Nicholas', '’Twas the Night before Christmas': use double quotes that aren't curly per MOS:QUOTETITLE.

[Done. Alarichall (talk) 21:08, 5 October 2017 (UTC)]

* "but it was the little helpers that were later attributed to him to whom the name stuck": to complex sentence, simplify or split up.

[Done. Alarichall (talk) 21:08, 5 October 2017 (UTC)]

* subsection Elf#Christmas elf does not clearly state where de Christmas Elf originated from. If they originated from the poem cited, say so unequivocally.

[I've had a quick look for secondary literature and although there must be decent stuff out there, I haven't yet found it. I've tried to phrase in ways that are consistent with what I've found. Alarichall (talk) 21:08, 5 October 2017 (UTC)]

Good. We stick to the sources, of course.--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 11:33, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

* "elves slightly resemble nimble": weasel sentence. Rephrase as "elves are nimble..."

[Done. Alarichall (talk) 21:08, 5 October 2017 (UTC)]

* 'fairy-stories': quotes seem out of place, remove.

[Done. Alarichall (talk) 21:08, 5 October 2017 (UTC)]

* "(popularized by the Dungeons & Dragons": did the RPG popularize Tolkien's elves or, the post-Tolkien version?

[Rephrased. Alarichall (talk) 21:08, 5 October 2017 (UTC)]

See also

* Remove entry, as it is already mentioned in the main body of the article. [Done. Alarichall (talk) 09:57, 30 September 2017 (UTC)]' '

Final conclusion of 27 September

I am finished now. I think the article covers the subject well. The content is quite complete, but you need to work hard on the language and style to get it to GA. However, it seems you rather busy, as you have not responded yet. I will give you time until 2 October to fix things, after which I will mark the nomination as failed. If you have sufficient reason, I can give you more time, but you have to let me know.--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 12:07, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

Thanks! I just thought I'd post here as well as on my talk page, for completeness. I really appreciate the care you've given to this and look forward to implementing/responding to your suggestions. Could you give me a couple of weeks? Alarichall (talk) 13:27, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Alarichall, perhaps you'd better tell me when you have time for the assessment, and I can put the article on hold for the time being. Normally, you have seven days to implement suggestions.--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 15:12, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Ah, I see. Well, I'll try and get it done this weekend and I'll let you know on Monday if I managed it or not, and we can see where we go from there. Thanks! Alarichall (talk) 16:44, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Alarichall, alright then. I can give you another week until 9 October, but after that, you would have to come up with pretty good reasons to ask for further postponement. See also WP:GAI. You can also ask another editor do the job instead of you, or work together. I have done that myself once (work together).--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 21:02, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Lol, I guess you and I just have a different understanding of 'a timely manner'. Anyway, thanks for the extension!

I have to start by stating the Wikipedia guidelines as a reviewer should, but if the situation requires it, I can be flexible.

I have used strikethrough text to indicate which problems have been fixed. The original research criterion has passed. With the speed you are doing this, you should be finished in no time.--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 20:27, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

Comments 6 October

Great work, Alarichall! The article has been greatly improved. Don't forget: the lead still needs some working on. Even though there are no copyright problems, the lead should be a comprehensive summary of the article, and all references cited in the lead should ideally be moved to the main body of the article. Also, it is unusual to have a large quote in a lead. The lead basically needs to state what is so important about this topic, and continue by summarizing the contents of the article, that's all.

After the lead is finished, there's just a few minor details left, but the article should pass GA.--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 11:55, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks! I appreciate your hard work on this and encouragement. I want to make sure I've finished any alterations of the main article before I have a go at the header. I don't think I'll be able to finish it today, but I will be able to tomorrow. I hope that's okay. Alarichall (talk) 15:04, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

Yes, we can go on until the 9th, Alarichall.--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 18:00, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

I have now underlined the text concerning the problem with the lead (WP:LEAD) and three other remaining suggestions one other remaining suggestion, that is the part on modern, Icelandic beliefs. Please also note that there are a few more sentences in the article that have not been sourced yet.

I've gone through and made sure that no paragraphs are unreferenced. A few paragraphs only have one reference at the end, when that reference covers the entirety of the material in the paragraph. There are no 'citation needed' tags left! Alarichall (talk) 21:42, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

And now I've extended the coverage of modern Icelandic elves a bit. Alarichall (talk) 21:56, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

The three remaining suggestions are remaining suggestion is minor and not crucial for GA-level, but if time allows, we can fix it them .--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 21:39, 6 October 2017 (UTC)--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 11:29, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

Okay, I hope we're now complete! But I may have missed something. It was a very detailed review of a very long article! Thanks again: it's been good working with you and you've made this article a lot better :-) Alarichall (talk) 21:57, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

Alarichall, you didn't miss a thing. Great work! I found the part on Icelandic beliefs especially interesting (and sobering)-- i always had the feeling that it was blown out of proportion. You do need to remove the part that says "(if these is even a useful question to ask)", I'm afraid, unless you can attribute it, per WP:EDITORIAL. As for the lead, leads are usually split in maximum four paragraphs, so if you can merge a bit that would be great. And then we're done. I also appreciate all the work you put into this, and your patience. My assessment was perhaps quite lengthy, but then again, this way the article won't get delisted from GA anytime soon, and you can bring it to FA level next. Oh, and don't forget to come up with an interesting "Did You Know?" entry for the Wikipedia front page. I'm sure you will come up with something quite fascinating.--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 11:14, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks! I'll sort out the header and attribution before bed, I hope... Alarichall (talk) 17:08, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

Non-reviewer comments

File:Eadwine Psalter f 66r detail of Christ and demons attacking psalmist.png is PD-old. It's currently under a wrong license. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:43, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

Finnusertop, thanks, I had overlooked that. {{PD-old-100}} tag, right?--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 19:57, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

Yes, Farang Rak Tham, that's right. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:44, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

Okay, thanks, Finnusertop.--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 21:11, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

Fixed.--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 11:29, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

Good Article review progress box

Criteria: 1a. prose () 1b. MoS () 2a. ref layout () 2b. cites WP:RS () 2c. no WP:OR () 2d. no WP:CV () 3a. broadness () 3b. focus () 4. neutral () 5. stable () 6a. free or tagged images () 6b. pics relevant () Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked are unassessed