Talk:Boobrie

Boobrie 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.
Review: October 23, 2014. (Reviewed version).

Scotland Mid‑importance

	Scotland portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Scotland, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Scotland and Scotland-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.ScotlandWikipedia:WikiProject ScotlandTemplate:WikiProject ScotlandScotland articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Mythology Low‑importance

	Mythology portal This article is supported by WikiProject Mythology. This project provides a central approach to Mythology-related subjects on Wikipedia. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the WikiProject page for more details.MythologyWikipedia:WikiProject MythologyTemplate:WikiProject MythologyMythology articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Scottish Islands Low‑importance

	Scottish islands portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Scottish Islands, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of islands in Scotland 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.Scottish IslandsWikipedia:WikiProject Scottish IslandsTemplate:WikiProject Scottish IslandsScottish Islands articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

A fact from Boobrie appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 6 December 2014 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:

Did you know... that the boobrie in Scottish folklore is said to prey on animals being transported on ships, preferably calves, but will also eat lambs and sheep?

A record of the entry may be seen at Wikipedia:Recent additions/2014/December. The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Boobrie.

Wikipedia

GA Review[edit]

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

Reviewer: Cirt (talk · contribs) 20:29, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I will review this article. — Cirt (talk) 20:29, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Stability review[edit]

Article mainspace = Upon inspection of article mainspace, edit history shows no signs of conflict going back several months.
Talk page = Looking at talk page and talk page history shows stability.

Article is stable.

Next, on to image review. — Cirt (talk) 04:48, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Image review[edit]

@Eric Corbett: One image used in article: File:Wormius' Great Auk.jpg, with appropriate licensing at Wikimedia Commons. No issues here. It's just a shame no one has yet been able to snap a photograph of the actual creature itself, preferably during mid-shapeshifting. I suppose the nominator could consider adding images of its other "forms". I wonder if its actual resting form is similar to that of Odo or more like Mystique.

Anyways, no problems with current image use in article in present state.

Next, on to rest of review. — Cirt (talk) 05:07, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Its resting form seems to be that of some kind of spirit, so rather hard to capture. We've struggled with finding images for many of these mythology articles. Eric Corbett 10:27, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Eric Corbett:I see the article uses a template which is being discussed at Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2014_October_20#Template:Bq, perhaps it should be converted to {{Quote}}, instead? — Cirt (talk) 01:41, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed that deletion discussion earlier today, now changed to {{quote}}. Eric Corbett 04:35, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! — Cirt (talk) 11:57, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review pass[edit]

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.	Writing quality is succinct and to the point, da grammar be good for article having to read for it.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	Lede intro sect is a tad bit skimpy but of good quality, could be something to improve going forwards.
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.	Duly cited throughout, no issues here.
	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).	Yes, good use of in-line citations, no problems seen here.
	2c. it contains no original research.	Nice use of secondary sources and attribution is given in text in appropriate manner, as well.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	Covers multiple aspects of subject matter from varying viewpoints.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	Indeed, focused on topic with room for additional sourced content in the future, if additional research permits.
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	No NPOV problems, presented in matter-of-fact and neutral manner, throughout.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	No issues here, per Stability review, above.
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.	No problems here, per Image review, above.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	No problems here, per Image review, above.
	7. Overall assessment.	Certainly a good quality article. Hopefully additional research will allow for further expansion in the future, but not necessary at this point in time. Good job overall. :)

Boobs for days[edit]

I love Michael boobrie 2A02:A459:1A51:1:B0AF:2C16:50FE:7554 (talk) 19:25, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]