Talk:Nuckelavee/GA1

GA Review[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:41, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Right, I have to review this...comments ta come....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:41, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The alternative spelling "nuckalavee" (I thought) was pretty uncommon - I think I'd leave it in the etymology section rather than the lead.

I think alternative spellings fit better in the lead than in the etymology section. Eric Corbett 17:08, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, wasn't unequivocal. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:02, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

~~In the etymology, would it be better to link "Orcadian" to a language? e.g. Orcadian dialect or Norn language?~~

Other reports state that the creature resembles a centaur; - hmm, I recall seeing that elsewhere...it is not necessarily contrastive as it is like a centaur-like monstrosity...I'd be inclined to put that at the top of the section. Truth be told it is more centaurlike than horselike really.

I'd be very reluctant to categorise a creature with two heads, one a horse's and the other a man's, as anything more than centaur-like, which why the term is introduced where it is. Eric Corbett 17:06, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

~~Err, what's mortasheen? can we link or something?~~

All that seems to be known about mortasheen is that it was a fatal disease of horses and cattle, but maybe the sentence as it was written didn't make it clear enough soon enough that it was a disease. I've reworked the sentence to hopefully clarify. Eric Corbett 23:42, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

ok - got it...yeah there is precious little otherwise to explain....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:02, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

~~Anywhere to link or otherwise explain Mither o' the Sea?~~

Overall, nice and tight - the nuckelavee is a standout critter so I doubt we'll see the mythological demarcation disputes......Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 15:20, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

1. Well written?:

Prose quality:

Manual of Style compliance:

2. Factually accurate and verifiable?:

References to sources:

Citations to reliable sources, where required:

No original research:

3. Broad in coverage?:

Major aspects:

Focused:

4. Reflects a neutral point of view?:

Fair representation without bias:

5. Reasonably stable?

No edit wars, etc. (Vandalism does not count against GA):

6. Illustrated by images, when possible and appropriate?:

Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

.be nice to get some sort of artistic depiction......google images has some amusing artwork I must say. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:12, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Overall:

Pass or Fail:

any queries I had that were not addressed were really stylistic only and not deal-breakers. Succinct and comprehensive. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:12, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]