Talk:The Man-Eating Myth/GA1

GA Review

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

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]