Talk:Strängnäs stone/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Chipmunkdavis (talk · contribs) 13:52, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Beginning this review. First impression is that the lead contains a few references not included elsewhere in the article, which suggests information may be in the lead which is not elsewhere in the article (eg. Runic-text database info). CMD (talk) 13:52, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Fixed with a new section.--Berig (talk) 14:10, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Possible origin

This section feels like it should be grouped with Geologic studies, as presumably it was these sorts of studies that led to its potential origin being ascertained. There should be more geographic context so the information is more understandable for international readers, who won't know where Strängnäs is. Is the estate mentioned an important historical one, or mythical one, and what is the time period of this estate?

Discovery

This section doesn't seem to actually describe a discovery. It jumps right into the stone already being discovered. It sounds like it somehow involved a stove, but it is unclear how. The text also doesn't say where it was discovered, and what happened after it was discovered. The quote provided seems a bit cryptic, if it is included could there be an explanation of its meaning? The section also contains three names dropped in with little explanation. There's also a lack of dates in this section, aside from the 1870s but it doesn't sound like it was discovered then.

International interest

This section is just one long paragraph, and like the previous section drops quite a few names without any explanatory context. Phrases like "at Vienna" are quite jargony and should be written more clearly, noting the countries as well. There is discussion about publishing, but the previous section stated it had already been published. It's unclear how the foreign researchers heard about the stone. Is having two interested foreigners a big deal in this field? The section ends quite abruptly, saying there was no publication. The 2011 publication mentioned later would fit here as a conclusion to the discovery chronology.

Tried to detail the name-drops with demonyms and professions, and expanded the geographical references (e.g. "at Vienna" to "at the University of Vienna"), which should, in combination with the demonyms, provide sufficient geographical context for the foreign researchers. I also mentioned the 2011 publication at the very end of the section, but hesitated to move the later paragraph regarding the 2011 work to this section.—PJsg1011 (talk) 19:04, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Linguistic analysis and context

• "Neither could the fake inscription Wodana hailag on the Kerlich buckle from Rheinland-Pfalz have inspired the inscription from Strängnäs." Could this be explained, including the potential relationship?
• Acronyms such as OWN/PIE/PN should be spelt out, or better indicated as first use.
• "to compare with the inscription hAriwolafʀ on the Stentoften Runestone and hAerAmAlAusʀ on the Björketorp Runestone." It would be good if this comparison was explained more clearly.
• "and with all those three" Should this be "as with all those three"?

In general this is quite a technical section, which is understandable, but it's worth seeing if there are terms or phrases (eg. "u-stem", "closed frame") that could be given a translation (so to speak).

Geological studies

• "faint erosion that had removed all remains of crushed quartz". Why would crushed quartz be expected? I assume that means trace crushed material, but this should be explained. Giving the material of the rock early on would also be useful establishing information for this section.

Lead

The lead still seems to be written on its own merits, not as a summary as it should be per WP:LEAD. It has a lot of the information that I've noted above was clearly missing from various sections, in addition to other unique information, and sentences that frame other information that are lacking from the article body. The lead is perhaps also not a good place to name drop at all, even with explanation.

Overall I think the core of a good article is here, but there needs to be some prose work to better contextualise the information for a general audience. I think this should be doable within a reasonable time frame, especially as this article seems thoroughly researched, so I will put this GAN on hold. CMD (talk) 15:42, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Three weeks have passed so I am closing this now. Hopefully it can help a future nomination. Best, CMD (talk) 11:16, 6 April 2021 (UTC)