Talk:Gerðr

	Gerðr has been listed as one of the Philosophy and religion good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones Date Process Result November 28, 2009 Good article nominee Listed

This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Mythology Mid‑importance This article is supported by WikiProject Mythology. This project provides a central approach to Mythology-related subjects on Wikipedia. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the WikiProject page for more details.MythologyWikipedia:WikiProject MythologyTemplate:WikiProject MythologyMythology articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Norse history and culture High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Norse history and culture, a WikiProject related to all activities of the North Germanic peoples, both in Scandinavia and abroad, prior to the formation of the Kalmar Union in 1397. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.Norse history and cultureWikipedia:WikiProject Norse history and cultureTemplate:WikiProject Norse history and cultureNorse history and culture articles High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Women This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of women on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.WomenWikipedia:WikiProject WomenTemplate:WikiProject WomenWikiProject Women articles Women in Religion Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of the Women in Religion WikiProject, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Women in religion. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.Women in ReligionWikipedia:WikiProject Women in ReligionTemplate:WikiProject Women in ReligionWomen in Religion articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Religion Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Wikipedia's articles on Religion-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.ReligionWikipedia:WikiProject ReligionTemplate:WikiProject ReligionReligion articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

This page really ought to be merged with gastroesophageal reflux disease, which itself is a merge of GERD and reflux esophagitis. JFW | T@lk 23:50, 15 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Why? This page is about a giantess, not a disease. Noneofyourbusiness 20:56, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just as a note, a disambiguation page at Gerd now handles this issue nicely. :bloodofox: (talk) 21:27, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And I've fixed the page histories so the relevant edits are with the right pages. Graham87 10:21, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

Reviewer: maclean (talk) 19:02, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see Wikipedia:What is a good article?)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

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

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

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:

Notes

• 6 images: public domain images hosted by the Commons.
• The captions could be made more clear. "Skírnir continues his threats (1895) by Lorenz Frølich" - what does 1895 refer to? Perhaps Skírnir continues his threats, as illustrated by Lorenz Frølich (1895), like the The Raven example at Wikipedia:Captions#Credits.
• Prose: from the Lead, "Gerðr is attested in the Poetic Edda; compiled..." sentence - I don't think this is proper use of semi-colons.
• Poetic Edda, there are numerous inline quotations but there seems to be two different translations (Thorpe and Bellows). Which translation are these quotes coming from?

1. Captions: I believe I have now fixed the caption issue. Please let me know if not. I don't know if the year needs to be after the name or not.
2. Semi-colons: My mistake, I believe I've fixed this.
3. Translations: There are actually three translations being used for the Poetic Edda in this article. Every line is referenced per the appropriation translation. Most of it is per Larrington. The stanzas are quotes from older (and often more accurate, actually) translations that are in the public domain. Each article I write of this sort usually has a few quotes. Quoting translations can add up over numerous articles and can result in copyright issues, so I find it safer to use public domain works unless they are poor choices. Fortunately, here they're not. I generally elect to use Larrington's translation for the body text because it's the most modern and available translation at the moment, even though it has shortcomings. :bloodofox: (talk) 02:41, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• OK. I didn't realize Larrington was a translation. --maclean (talk) 04:13, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for taking the time to look the article over. If you are interested, I currently have another article up for review: Geri and Freki. The current reviewer seems confused and is requesting a second opinion. It's a much shorter article. Perhaps you can help. :bloodofox: (talk) 05:31, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]