Talk:Nuckelavee/GA1

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

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

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


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


 * 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)


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


 * 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)

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)

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)