Talk:Acantha/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

Reviewer: J Milburn (talk · contribs) 19:40, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

I applaud you for taking on this article, but I fear that there isn't enough material to justify promoting the article to GA status. At 970 B (158 words) "readable prose size", this is too short even for DYK.

Here are some general comments which will hopefully help you prep future articles for GAC:


 * Genus names, book titles and periodicals should be italicised ✅ - Thank you for taking care of this. Nyctimene (talk) 12:37, 6 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Your references should be a little fuller; year of publication and publishers (where they exist) for books, specific article names/authors for periodicals. Cite book and Cite journal may be helpful. ✅ - Nyctimene (talk) 12:37, 6 November 2014 (UTC)


 * The Greek deities sidebar isn't particularly useful; perhaps if there was one for nymphs, that would be appropriate ❌ - I'm afraid I disagree with this point. This is in fact the nymph sidebar. The relevant template is, "Greek myth (nymph)" and it can be found in a number of other articles on specific nymphs. Nyctimene (talk) 12:37, 6 November 2014 (UTC)


 * "The tale goes that Acantha was a nymph loved by the god Apollo. Acantha however rebutted Apollo's advances and scratched his face when he tried to rape her. As a result Apollo transformed her into the Acanthus, a plant with spiny leaves." Footnotes here, please - ✅ Nyctimene (talk) 12:37, 6 November 2014 (UTC)


 * "In the first edition Lemprière provides no reference for the story. In the updated seventh edition three references are given however, on inspection, none actually contain the myth.[6] As such the tale appears to be a comparatively modern invention as opposed to a myth genuinely embraced by the Ancient Greeks." The fact that the only source cited here is L's seventh edition, this reads like original research. Do you have a reputable source citing what you here claim? - ✅ - Fair point. I have reworded the final paragraph in a way which, hopefully, meets this objection. Nyctimene (talk) 12:37, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Given that the article is so short, you'd really have to plum the depths of every source out there to see what, if anything, has been said; there are a good few hits on Google Scholar (even when I've narrowed it down a little), so there may be more out there. If there's really nothing else to say, it should probably be merged, as per WP:SIZERULE. Given that Acantha may not actually be a "real" nymph, you can probably do justice to the topic at Acanthus (plant).

Sorry I haven't got any better news, but the topic's certainly an interesting one- even if the article isn't really suitable for GA status as it stands. J Milburn (talk) 19:40, 5 November 2014 (UTC)