Talk:Kelpie: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 22:49, 17 December 2020

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Kelpie article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2: 30 days

Template:Vital article

Kelpie is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.

This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on June 29, 2014.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
June 15, 2014	Featured article candidate	Promoted

Folklore FA‑class Low‑importance

	This article falls within the scope of WikiProject Folklore, a WikiProject dedicated to improving Wikipedia's coverage of the topics of folklore and folklore studies. If you would like to participate, you may edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project's page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to discussion.FolkloreWikipedia:WikiProject FolkloreTemplate:WikiProject FolkloreFolklore articles
FA	This article has been rated as FA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Scotland FA‑class Low‑importance

	Scotland portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Scotland, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Scotland and Scotland-related topics 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.ScotlandWikipedia:WikiProject ScotlandTemplate:WikiProject ScotlandScotland articles
FA	This article has been rated as FA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Kelpie article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2: 30 days

Article is in a bad state, needs review or rewrite

This article is in a terrible state: Many of its sources are from the 18th and even 17th century, and their reliability even for their era do not appear to have been vetted. This article covers an entity from folklore, and requires reliable discussion from specialists in this topic, ideally from peer-reviewed items produced by folklorists. Currently, that's definitely not the case and could use a source-by-source review, if not a total rewrite from the ground up using only modern reliable sources composed by folklorists. :bloodofox: (talk) 06:43, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Considering the above, as well as the issues brought up that are now archived[1], and that the two FAC nominators are no longer active (and are therefore not maintaining it), it may be worth looking over the article again. FunkMonk (talk) 22:49, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Revision as of 06:44, 13 December 2020 edit Bloodofox (talk \| contribs) Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers 33,310 edits Project swap, not evidenced in myth but evidenced in folktales and legends ← Previous edit		Revision as of 22:49, 17 December 2020 edit undo FunkMonk (talk \| contribs) Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Page movers, File movers, Pending changes reviewers 101,810 edits →‎Article is in a bad state, needs review or rewrite Next edit →
Line 27:		Line 27:

	This article is in a terrible state: Many of its sources are from the 18th and even 17th century, and their reliability even for their era do not appear to have been vetted. This article covers an entity from folklore, and requires reliable discussion from specialists in this topic, ideally from peer-reviewed items produced by folklorists. Currently, that's definitely not the case and could use a source-by-source review, if not a total rewrite from the ground up using only modern reliable sources composed by folklorists. [[User:Bloodofox\|:bloodofox:]] ([[User talk:Bloodofox\|talk]]) 06:43, 13 December 2020 (UTC)		This article is in a terrible state: Many of its sources are from the 18th and even 17th century, and their reliability even for their era do not appear to have been vetted. This article covers an entity from folklore, and requires reliable discussion from specialists in this topic, ideally from peer-reviewed items produced by folklorists. Currently, that's definitely not the case and could use a source-by-source review, if not a total rewrite from the ground up using only modern reliable sources composed by folklorists. [[User:Bloodofox\|:bloodofox:]] ([[User talk:Bloodofox\|talk]]) 06:43, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
			:Considering the above, as well as the issues brought up that are now archived[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Kelpie/Archive_2#Loch_Ness], and that the two FAC nominators are no longer active (and are therefore not maintaining it), it may be worth looking over the article again. [[User:FunkMonk\|FunkMonk]] ([[User talk:FunkMonk\|talk]]) 22:49, 17 December 2020 (UTC)