# Talk:Verein für germanisches Heidentum

This review is transcluded from Talk:Verein für germanisches Heidentum/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Vaticidalprophet (talk · contribs) 10:39, 27 June 2023 (UTC)
A solid article. I only have a few notes, mostly revolving around improving readability for a non-specialist audience:

Links to Völkisch movement mostly seem like they should be specifically piped to Völkisch movement#Modern usage in Heathenry for clarity. Similarly, a link to something like Heathenry (new religious movement)#Racial issues might be appreciated from 'universalist' in the lead, for readers who aren't necessarily familiar with the dichotomy or why VfGH rejects it.
Done
Probably worth clarifying that blót ceremonies are sacrificial. Also, is 'reinvented' the ideal word compared to more common choices like 'reconstructed'?
Explained blót in the lead. "Reinvention" is used in contrast to "reconstruction" in the source ("Man müsse weniger auf die vergebliche Re-Konstruktion setzen, sondern vielmehr auf die ideenreiche Re-Invention der Religion", "You have to rely less on the vain reconstruction, but rather on the conceptive reinvention of religion"). I added a few words to the article body about why they prefer this approach.
Consider using the {{lang}} template for German text (such as when writing the full titles of organizations). I see it's used a couple times in the article, but not consistently.
Added a bunch, maybe missed something.
"Dualist" is a little more common a phrasing than "dualistic".
Changed
The meeting was exclusively for "inclusive" Germanic neopagans, which led to discussions about what it means to be inclusive Do we have further details on such discussions?
Added a little. It's hard to elaborate more without WP:OR, since the source doesn't discuss the VfGH's position in particular.
I may make further comments, but these are the only clear ones at the moment. Vaticidalprophet 10:39, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the review! I'll be happy to address any other concerns you have. Ffranc (talk) 11:59, 27 June 2023 (UTC)
Thanks so much for your prompt replies! I've made some minor copyedits for prose quality (feel free to tweak any further) and spotchecked a few cites (checking through the cited chapters of Norse Revival) without issue. I'm happy to pass the article; it's a concise but in-depth look at the subject that doesn't need any more significant work for GA status. Vaticidalprophet 12:32, 27 June 2023 (UTC)
Thank you! Ffranc (talk) 12:58, 27 June 2023 (UTC)