Talk:The Man-Eating Myth

The Man-Eating Myth has been listed as one of the Social sciences and society good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
March 30, 2013	Good article nominee	Listed

Books

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Books. To participate in the project, please visit its page, where you can join the project and discuss matters related to book articles. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the relevant guideline for the type of work.BooksWikipedia:WikiProject BooksTemplate:WikiProject BooksBook articles

History Mid‑importance

	History portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the subject of History 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.HistoryWikipedia:WikiProject HistoryTemplate:WikiProject Historyhistory articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Anthropology Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Anthropology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Anthropology 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.AnthropologyWikipedia:WikiProject AnthropologyTemplate:WikiProject AnthropologyAnthropology articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.

Education Low‑importance

	Education portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Education, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of education and education-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.EducationWikipedia:WikiProject EducationTemplate:WikiProject Educationeducation articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:The Man-Eating Myth/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Nephiliskos (talk · contribs) 13:16, 8 February 2013 (UTC) On hold: this article is awaiting improvements before it is passed or failed.[reply]

Sources

The references are a bit Arens-driven. Aren't there any outside sources for the textes from Arens? Regards;--Nephiliskos (talk) 13:16, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

When referencing Arens' ideas, surely the best source is Arens himself ? Midnightblueowl (talk) 14:17, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Aah, now I see the concept. Yeah ok, in this way it makes sense. I just thought there might by other authors describing the myth themself. Regards;--Nephiliskos (talk) 14:20, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Checklist

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	The prose is generally good, except some typos. Just check it out. ;-)
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).
	2c. it contains no original research.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
	7. Overall assessment.	I'm leaving this one on hold for now.

Checklist 2

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	The prose is generally good, but could do with a few improvements to better fit Wikipedia's standards, removing POV words etc. There are also issues with the quality of written instance, for instance "most known versions of the legend" should be "best known". If you like, I can go through the article and make these prose changes myself ? It will be easier and quicker than me listing them for you to correct ?
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).
	2c. it contains no original research.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
	7. Overall assessment.	I'm leaving this one on hold for now. Nephiliskos (talk) 16:57, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Have the typos been cleaned up? Wizardman 15:51, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like five of them were cleared up later the same day. A scan of much of the article didn't reveal any more, though I can't say I was comprehensive. I did change "advert" to "advertisement", however. The reviewer appears to have become nearly inactive, so if this is going to go anywhere, you may want to finish it up. BlueMoonset (talk) 21:13, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I did a skim through the article and didn't see anything concerning, aside from the infobox pic being blurry (which it kinda has to be as a non-free image), so I'll close this. Wizardman 02:44, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]