Talk:The Story of Sigurd the Volsung and the Fall of the Niblungs

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:The Story of Sigurd the Volsung and the Fall of the Niblungs/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Sindinero (talk · contribs) 10:07, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

   The prose is mostly good, but could use some copy editing to give it a more encyclopedic tone: many usages ("philtre," "all matters Norse," etc.) sound a little too in-universe, in a sense, and come across as a little precious.  Done

   The synopsis could be tightened up a bit.  Done

   The quote on Tolkien comes a little abruptly; a little context might help to cushion it.  Done Sindinero (talk) 06:46, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

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

   I have a question about the sentence: "Morris first came across the story of the Volsungs, "the grandest tale that ever was told" as he later called it, as a student at Oxford, when he read a summary of it in Benjamin Thorpe's Northern Mythology, which became a favourite book of his.[6][7][8]" The first source (The Nibelungen Tradition) supports the quote, and the third source confirms that Thorpe's book introduced Morris to Norse mythology. I can't access the second source (Old Norse Made New), but it would have to support both that Morris read a summary specifically of the Volsungs story in that work, and that it was one of Morris' favorites, since neither of the other two sources can support these claims, as far as I can see. Does it in fact state this? If not, this sentence needs to be modified. Sindinero (talk) 07:13, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

   Hi! Antiquary here. I was drawing on three passages from Old Norse Made New, which I'll give in full here. "[Clark and Phelpstead quote something Morris wrote in 1856, shortly after Oxford:] I read once in lazy humour Thorpe's Northern Mythology". "According to Eirikr's account of his first meeting with Morris…the poet was on that occasion in 1868 'already preoccupied with the grand types of the heroes (Sigurd the Volsung) and heroines (Brynhild, Gudrun) of the Elder Edda', with which he was familiar from Thorpe's translation (Thorpe 1851-52 [i.e. the Northern Mythology])" "He finally made its [i.e. Volsunga Saga’s] acquaintance in the summer of 1869." It seems to me that putting these together you get the facts that Morris did not know Volsunga Saga in 1869, that he was familiar with the Volsung story from Thorpe's Northern Mythology before that, and that he had read Thorpe by 1856, which was shortly after he went down from Oxford. I now think I was a bit cavalier in using that evidence to say that he'd read it as a student, so I've changed the wording to "as a young man". I can't, on a quick flick through Old Norse Made New, see any reference to Thorpe's being a favourite of Morris, so I've added another reference, which says "Thorpe's Northern Mythology, one of Morris's favourite books". Hope this has improved that section and answered your worries. None of this might have got fixed without the review! --Antiquary (talk) 21:06, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   Editions: Just a minor point - what is the current critical edition, i.e., the one that scholars working on the poem use and quote from? That would be useful to include. Sindinero (talk) 06:46, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

   Critical reception: were there any prominent negative reviews that bear mentioning? It strikes me as unlikely that a poem of this stature and style would come out of the late-19th century media environment totally unscathed, although I might be wrong there. If you have access to any evidence of a more negative reception, it might be good to include a quote or two - not for balance, but because a negative characterization of a work can often convey more about it to readers than a positive one. Sindinero (talk) 06:46, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

   The quote included from Henry Hewlitt is pretty negative and Watts also mentions that the poem isn't likely to be popular with the reading public. INeverCry 18:40, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

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:

Lead

Lead. To meet GA criteria 1(b), which relates to specific manual of style guidelines, the article needs to comply with the advice in WP:LEAD. That is, in addition to being an introduction, the lead needs to be an adequate overview of the whole of the article. As a rough guide, each major section in the article should be represented with an appropriate summary in the lead. Also, the article should provide further details on all the things mentioned in the lead. And, the first few sentences should mention the most notable features of the article's subject - the essential facts that every reader should know.

Issues: The view of and quote from his daughter May are not in the main article. Indeed, it appears that almost nothing in the second half of the lead is mentioned in the main article. There is a lot of information contained in the article that is not mentioned in the lead, such as initial critical reception, later influence, the publishing history, etc. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 11:05, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

I've sent an email to my collaborator on this article. He's been having health issues, but hopefully he'll be able to chime in on this. I mostly helped with copy editing and referencing, but I'll see what I can do to address these concerns in the near future. INeverCry 18:44, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Any of us can write a summary of the article in the lead section, which is certainly a bit short. The second part of the lead probably just needs to be moved into the article body really. I don't see this as anything too major. Chiswick Chap (talk) 20:02, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

The lead certainly did need to be brought in line with WP guidelines, and I've now made an attempt to do that. If anyone can see how to improve it further I hope they'll go right ahead. Thanks for the input, everyone. --Antiquary (talk) 00:14, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Wagner

The section referring to "his eventual decision to write the poem may have also been influenced by his knowledge that Richard Wagner was bringing his own Volsung epic to completion" needs better sourcing. The only source provided talks about Morris's response to Wagner's Der Ring des Nibelungen, but doesn't make the connection between that and Morris writing this poem. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 11:27, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

I've removed the speculation so the statements at the moment are neutral and factual. It can be adjusted later if sources are found. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 11:32, 31 January 2013 (UTC)