# Talk:Luttra Woman

I'm confused by the presence of the red label for Skånum in the Map of Mönarp's bogs (under Discovery), which is not explained in the caption, nor in the description of the image itself in WMCommons. Can anyone help? (Also, wouldn't it be useful to include a map contextualising this bog within Sweden as a whole?) Gabrielbodard (talk) 10:11, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

Actually yes, I agree, the map could be better. BorgQueen (talk) 10:31, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
I've replaced the map image. BorgQueen (talk) 02:13, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
@Gabrielbodard: Better now?  BorgQueen (talk) 20:35, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
Lovely, thank you! Gabrielbodard (talk) 08:46, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

The text says "she was probably born and grew up in Scania . . . and brought to present-day Mönarp's bogs in a later period of her life."  "Brought" suggests that the move was not voluntary, yet her apparent age allows for the possibility that she migrated of her own volition, either alone or with others.  Is there any evidence for an involuntary journey, or would another word be more appropriate? Piledhigheranddeeper (talk) 13:21, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

No such evidence as far as I know. Please feel free to reword it! BorgQueen (talk) 13:27, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
I've reworded it to travelled. BorgQueen (talk) 13:58, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Luttra Woman/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Joe Roe (talk · contribs) 07:50, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Is it well written?
A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct: 

B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation: 

Is it verifiable with no original research?
A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline: 
A few references (e.g. Sjögren et al. 2017, Tjäder 2022) are repeated many times with just different page numbers. You might consider one of the options described in WP:IBID to reduce the redundancy.
B. Reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose): 

C. It contains no original research: 
Nothing major, but there are a few places that stray a bit too far into OR for my tastes:  Also, are there actually sources that call these remains a "bog body" (Swedish: mosslik)? Because usually that implies mummified soft tissue.
 Addressed below. – Joe (talk) 09:46, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism: 
Earwig's copyvio report returns zero matches.[1]
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic: 

B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style): 
Effective use of footnotes for parenthetical material.
Is it neutral?
It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each: 

Is it stable?
It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute: 

Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content: 

B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions: 

Overall:
Pass or Fail: 
If we can resolve the issue of possible OR mentioned under 2c, an easy pass. – Joe (talk) 07:50, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
All looks good now. – Joe (talk) 09:46, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
@Joe Roe Many thanks for review. I've removed the footnotes, as per your points. As for the bog body mention, the English-language source by Sjögren et al. (2017) says (page 104-105): Thus, the presence of pyrite and the absence of bioerosion suggests that the body of Hallonflickan has been kept in a stable, reducing and anoxic environment since relatively shortly after her death and until her discovery. It furthermore suggests that the skeleton was located below the water level and was not affected by water level fluctuations to any great extent. [...] Decalcification is typical of European bog body finds and rapid decalcification has been observed after experimental burial of bone samples. Decalcification was then connected to the presence of sphagnum moss (Turner-Walker/Peacock 2008). Thus, the lack of sphagnum moss may explain the absence of extensive demineralisation in the case of Hallonflickan. I think the quoted passages show that the authors consider Hallonflickan/Luttra Woman as one of the "European bog body finds". Please let me know if you disagree.  BorgQueen (talk) 08:25, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
Just found this source, which says: Such finds are generally described under the overarching term ‘bog bodies’. On closer inspection, however, different categories can be distinguished based on levels of preservation (e.g. Nielsen et al. Reference Nielsen, Christensen and Frei2020: 2) (Figure 1). In this article, the term ‘bog mummy’ is used for human remains with preserved soft tissue and/or hair, while ‘bog skeleton’ refers to skeletal remains which can reasonably be assumed to have been deposited as a complete body [...] The number of known bog bodies in Europe, including bog mummies and bog skeletons, is estimated to be approximately 2000 (e.g. Gill-Robinson Reference Gill-Robinson and Mathieu2002: 111; Nielsen et al. Reference Nielsen, Christensen and Frei2020: 2). So the skeletonised remains found in bogs are apparently a type of bod bodies. BorgQueen (talk) 08:54, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
Fair enough, I wasn't sure. Thank you for addressing the other points, I think this is good to go. – Joe (talk) 09:44, 9 October 2023 (UTC)