Talk:Gabriel Turville-Petre

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Gabriel Turville-Petre/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Whiteguru (talk · contribs) 03:37, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

Starts GA Review; the review will follow the same sections of the Article. --Whiteguru (talk) 17:04, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

 

---

Observations

Final

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): (Good expression)

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism): (extensively referenced, appropriate)

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused): (For Icelandic, Old Norse, and related language acquisition - Germanic, Irish, Welsh, Gothic, very broad)

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias: (Neutrality is observed)

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.: (Stable article, no edit wars in history)

6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions): (All images cited in public domain or CC by SA)

7. Overall:

• A well researched and referenced article on the contributions of Gabriel Turville-Petre to Old Norse literature. Makes good use of Foote, (Proceedings of the British Academy) and O'Donoghue (DNB). Origins of Icelandic Literature and Myth and Religion of the North along with the students he taught are testaments to his industry and accomplishments.       --Whiteguru (talk) 05:43, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

 

 Passed

• Thanks for the review, Whiteguru! Krakkos (talk) 10:00, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Vaticidalprophet (talk) 12:22, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

Gabriel Turville-Petre

• ... that Gabriel Turville-Petre's (pictured) Myth and Religion of the North (1964) has been considered the best work on Norse mythology in English? Source: Foote, Peter (1980). "Gabriel Turville-Petre" (PDF). Proceedings of the British Academy. 64. Oxford University Press: 467–481. Archived from the original (PDF) on 3 March 2020. Retrieved 3 March 2020. Turville-Petre's most ambitious and substantial undertaking was his Myth and Religion of the North... [It] is an authorative work unrivalled by anything else in English.; O'Donoghue, Heather (23 September 2004). "Petre, (Edward Oswald) Gabriel Turville". Oxford Dictionary of National Biography (online ed.). Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/ref:odnb/58900. Retrieved 3 March 2020. His Myth and Religion of the North (1964) is the best account of Old Norse–Icelandic mythology in English... (Subscription or UK public library membership required.)

• Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Uinta Basin Rail

Improved to Good Article status by Krakkos (talk). Self-nominated at 09:47, 20 March 2021 (UTC).

• @Krakkos: The tag on the article needs to be resolved in order for this nomination to proceed. In other regards, this is a newly promoted GA and meets the newness and length criteria. The image is appropriately licensed, the hook facts are cited inline, the article is neutral and I detected no copyright issues. A QPQ has been done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:41, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the review, Cwmhiraeth. I have expanded the lead and removed the now redundant template. I hope this resolves the issue. Krakkos (talk) 07:13, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

• Thank you. This nomination is good to go. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:23, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

• Cwmhiraeth Krakkos I'm not sure about the hook. It seems to me that it should state who considers it to be the best work on the topic. SL93 (talk) 23:46, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

• @SL93: I have tweaked the hook in an attempt to address your concerns without making the hook too long and complex. Krakkos (talk) 17:31, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

• That's fine. Restoring approval. SL93 (talk) 22:59, 10 April 2021 (UTC)