Talk:Rune stone

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article falls within the scope of WikiProject Writing systems, a WikiProject interested in improving the encyclopaedic coverage and content of articles relating to writing systems on Wikipedia. If you would like to help out, you are welcome to drop by the project page and/or leave a query at the project’s talk page.
???	This article has not yet been assigned a rating on the Project’s quality scale.
???	This article has not yet been assigned a rating on the Project’s importance scale.

Rune stone was a good article candidate, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. Once the objections listed below are addressed, the article can be renominated. You may also seek a review of the decision if you feel there was a mistake. Date of review: 2007-01-16

Contents 1 inscription articles 2 cut redlinks 3 Perspective - Encyclopedic Style 4 GA Failed

[edit] inscription articles

seeing that Category:Runic inscriptions is getting a little bit out of hand, what about merging articles on inscriptions into larger categories, like Elder Futhark rune stones, Younger Futhark rune stones (with only the most notable examples keeping separate articles). If other material accumulates, we could also go for Runic bracteate inscriptions and Runic fibulae inscriptions or similar. I would also discourage double categorization as "Runestone" and "Runic inscription" - it clutters the category, and Runestones is already a subcategory of Runic inscriptions. The Runestone template seems to take for granted the Younger Futhark, but since there are 65 known Elder Futhark runestones, these should maybe be categorized seperately. dab (ᛏ) 13:36, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

I am concerned that perhaps the division of type of runes used will not divy up these articles enough. the majority were done during the same 100 year period when the vi-Kings were really busy bragging about themselves.. .. I do definitely agree this is getting out of hand and must be divided up into smaller articles, and feel at the same time the information is somewhat relevant and useful.

Perhaps a division of Countries / Districts? The lists in this article will get silly, but they could link to another page with all the un-nonenoteworthy (uuuh...) stones. For example, an entry in the list of Rune Stones for Sweden, then a sublisting for Uppland which sends you to the article "List of Rune Stones in Uppland", which would look something like this: User:Mceder/RuneDistrictTest . Perhaps? Mceder 00:47, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Oh, also removed the double category out of the template. Good point. Mceder 00:47, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Your test pages looks pretty good, except that IMHO there is too much colors & graphics. I proposed quite a long time ago to merge the articles into some kind of lists. IMHO best approach would be to merge according to names: Uppland Rune Inscriptions, Medelpad Rune Inscriptions, Östergötland Rune Inscriptions, etc. If say one page gets too long, divide into two: eg Uppland Rune Inscriptions (1-25) & Uppland Rune Inscriptions (26-50) or something like this. Renata3 23:55, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Well finally had some more time to work on this. I just added List of Rune Inscriptions in Östergötland and I plan to request removing the articles I added, at least the ones that have no other information then this list does. Comments and recommendations very welcome! I will start adding the other districts, but if there is something that is really dumb and needs to change it is not a big deal - the top part is template driven and the data itself is auto-generated. Mceder 04:45, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] cut redlinks

to be re-added as the articles are created:

• The Austers Hangvar Stone
• The Halla Bora stone
• The Husaby Stone
• The Hogrän Stone
• The Klinte Stone
• The Martebo Stones
• The Pilgards Rune Stone, Boge
• The Sanda Stones
• The Sjonhem Stone
• The Stenkjyrka Stone, Lillebjärs
• The Timans Rune Stone
• The Tängvida Stone

dab (ᛏ) 13:11, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Perspective - Encyclopedic Style

It seems like much of the writing in this article is more in the style of a term paper, or a discussion in a book, than an encyclopedia article. I think the personal perspective that is used (primarily in the Tradition and Locations sections) detracts from the quality of the article (Style Manual - Avoid first-person pronouns and one) - Not a big deal, but after reading through pages and pages of wiki encyclopedic articles on a subject, coming across lines like these (below) almost makes me want to question the quality of the material.

"One may ask why ..."

"...we can assume that..."

"These inscriptions tell us..."

"Keep in mind that...</>"

"It may sound strange to hear that..."

Just a suggestion :-) KYJustin 19:39, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] GA Failed

As of [1], the article during this review, I failed this article for Good Article status, per WP:WIAGA:

1. There is embedded list in the article. Please rewrite them as textual writing or create a new separate list article.
2. The article is undercited. Tradition, Types and Colorization sections are completely unsourced. I found also an external link inside the main article.

When all the above issues are resolved, this article can be renominated back. As always when editors disagree about this review, you can submit this article to WP:GA/R. — Indon (reply) — 13:00, 16 January 2007 (UTC)