Talk:Sigyn/GA1

GA Review

Hi! I will be conducting the GA review of this article, and I should have the full review up within a few hours. Dana boomer (talk) 18:04, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

   • Could a sentence or two be added to the lead that summarizes the last three sections? The lead is supposed to summarize the entire article, and it currently only summarizes the first section.
   • In the "Poetic Edda" section, you say "In the stanza 35". Should this be "In stanza 35"?
   • Same section, you say "of the late poem Lokasenna." What is a "late poem"?
   • Same section, you say "his son Narfi is described as having been turned into a wolf". Is this relevant?
   • In the "Prose Edda" section, you say "described similarly though differently". I see what you mean, but is there any way to reword this? It just sounds...odd...
   • Same section, you say "Here, the gods have captured Loki and his two sons, whom here are". Can one of the "here"'s be removed or reworded?
   • Same section, you say "His guts are then". Whose guts?
   • Same section, you say "and he is here also described". First of all, who is "he"? (I know you mean Loki, but it could be more clear). Second of all, with all of the "here"'s in this paragraph, it gets a little repetitive. Maybe just say that it's similar to the Poetic Edda story, but with some differences. Then, go on to tell the story, without anymore comparisons between the two.
   • Same section, you say "as a goddess, an ásynjur,". Should this be "or asynjur"? It works either way, really, I just like mine better :)
   • In the "Archaeological record" section, you say "Sigyn is interpreted as depicted". Why "interpreted as depicted"?

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

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

   • The last sentence of the "Modern influence" section needs a reference.
   • Web references must have a publisher and an access date.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   • Is there any chance at all that the last three sections can be expanded? If not, would it be possible to combine the "Archaeological record" and "Theories" sections? I'm not sure what you would call it though... The way it is now, with those three really short sections all next to each other, makes the article look really choppy and almost unfinished.
   • Did she have no other purpose in the mythology other than to be Loki's wife/caretaker? If so, this is fine, but it would be interesting to say if there were mentions of her other than as his wife.

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:

Overall a good article. I am putting the article on hold to allow you time to deal with the minor concerns mentioned above. My main overarching theme is that it would be great if the article was a little longer, especially in the end sections. However, I understand if this information is simply not available. If you have any questions, let me know here on the review page or on my talk page. Dana boomer (talk) 18:43, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! I believe the prose issues have been solved (thanks Holt!). A few points I'd like to address:

Firstly, this is all there is about Sigyn. There are no more surviving sources regarding her and this all that they say. Due to this, there aren't a lot of theories about Sigyn out there as there isn't much to base them on. This was the only one I could find when I went looking. As mentions of her are pretty minimal, as you can see, and there are also few popular culture mentions of her. I did find that a strain of wheat has been named after her, and then there's a Marvel comics character based off of her. I suppose we could mention them? The same goes for some of the other depictions of Loki and Sigyn. I wouldn't want to merge these sections as it wouldn't make a whole lot of sense, and I am afraid there isn't much of a way to fill them out that I can see so far. Would it help if I described the Gosforth cross depiction in more detail (if possible)?

Narfi is mentioned as he seems to be a son of Loki and Sigyn, thus his fate before her would seem to be relevant. Sigyn is specifically referred to as a part of the "asynjur" in two instances. This is not a synonym for "goddess" but rather indicates that she was considered a member of the Æsir, a tribe of gods, as opposed to say, the Vanir, another tribe. Of course, the two both merged into a single tribe as the result of a war, but there are other goddess figures that exist outside of these tribes in Germanic mythology as well. This is the reason for my specific wording here. :bloodofox: (talk) 05:10, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

I've struck the items that have been completed to my satisfaction. There are still a couple of little prose things that probably just got overlooked on the first run through. Also, a new ref issue that popped up with the solving of the old!

On to detail - if you really don't want to merge these sections, it's fine with me. I would be in favor of more expansion in detail on the cross, if possible. Also, adding information about sightings of Sigyn in popular culture (and agriculture) would be great. Thanks for the explanation of "asynjur" as opposed to goddess. I was under the impression that they were synonymous, which, as you've explained, they're not.

Just a few more tweaks and I'll be ready to pass this article on to GA. Nice work! Dana boomer (talk) 12:54, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

I have solved the ref issue that you pointed out now. –Holt T•C 14:40, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick work. I've added a couple of references to the new popular culture stuff, and with that I'm going to call it good and pass the article. Dana boomer (talk) 12:36, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Great! No problem, thanks for the review and the added references. :bloodofox: (talk) 17:37, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Pronunciation

Anybody have any information on how this name should be pronounced?Number36 (talk) 02:46, 25 January 2011 (UTC)