Talk:Chupacabra

Chupacabra was nominated as a good article, but it did not meet the good article criteria at the time (October 23, 2007). There are suggestions below for improving the article. If you can improve it, please do; it may then be renominated.

This article has not yet been rated on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Puerto Rico B‑class Low‑importance

	Puerto Rico portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Puerto Rico, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics related to Puerto Rico 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.Puerto RicoWikipedia:WikiProject Puerto RicoTemplate:WikiProject Puerto RicoPuerto Rico articles
B	This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Cryptozoology

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Cryptozoology, an attempt to improve coverage of the pseudoscience and subculture of cryptozoology on Wikipedia. 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.CryptozoologyWikipedia:WikiProject CryptozoologyTemplate:WikiProject CryptozoologyCryptids articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Paranormal B‑class

	This article falls under the scope of WikiProject Paranormal, which aims to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to the paranormal and related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the attached article, help with current tasks, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and discussions.ParanormalWikipedia:WikiProject ParanormalTemplate:WikiProject Paranormalparanormal articles
B	This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Mythology

	Mythology portal 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
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Archives

/Archive 1

Request Edit

Under History, the sentence "The first known attacks attributed to Denise Padilla occurred in March of 1995 . . .". I am sure that name does not belong there. GLKeeney^Talk 19:58, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cow Rapist

It says under history what you may not know is that chupacabra means cow rapist which is untrue. Im removing it--Primetimeking 03:10, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Failed GAC

GA review (see here for criteria)

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose): b (MoS):
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
It is stable.
No edit wars etc.:
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):
Overall:
Pass/Fail:

1 The prose tends to be wordy. Example: 'March of 1995' instead of 'March 1995'. First sentence of the history section appears to be using the wrong word and the article needs a copyedit in general. With my date correction, the MOS appears to be followed, although there is a bit too much bolding.

2 One of the sources links back to Wikipedia and it is unclear whether they used the Wikipedia page or if Wikipedia used them as a source. Of course, if both happened, we might be citing ourselves.

3 While the coverage is on topic, I've read several sources that mention the Chupacabra as far back as the 1950s or 1970s neither of which have been included in the text. The text also mentions every recent sighting which is not very good when the article needs to be focused, only the relevant where info surfaced warrant mention.

4 In several places 'supposedly' and 'purported' are inserted when it's really not needed. When you say a person stated something, it's already clear it's their opinion or testimony. This way of writing tends to have a POV glow.

5 Heavily vandalised by IPs but otherwise stable.

6 Image use is fine, although it's sparse. - Mgm|^(talk) 08:23, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]