Template:Did you know nominations/Boobrie
< Template:Did you know nominations
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Revision as of 15:09, 3 December 2014 by imported>G S Palmer (Good to go. Since it passed the GA criteria, I'm skipping checking for copyvio or misrepresentation of sources.)
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
Boobrie
... that the boobrie in Scottish folklore commonly preys on animals being transported on ships, preferably calves, but will also eat lambs and sheep?
- Reviewed: Not a self-nomination (and nominated before the rules changed). On request: BH Crucis
Improved to Good Article status by Eric Corbett (talk), Sagaciousphil (talk). Nominated by Oceanh (talk) at 10:37, 26 October 2014 (UTC).
I actually own one of these books! Alas, not the one relevant to the exact information, but the single reference I can check is fun. It's a GA in the correct time period, long enough, well written. I think under the news rules suggested @Oceanh will actually have to do a QPQ? Given the number of DYKs to their name. Also, I usually couch all my descriptions of mythical creatures with 'supposedly' and 'is said to be'. That might be overkill, or it might be good practice. It does sound like a description of a real being. Regardless, I believe QPQ is required before a big fat tick can be put on. PanydThe muffin is not subtle 17:03, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
- ALT1: ... that the boobrie in Scottish folklore is said to commonly prey on animals being transported on ships, preferably calves, but will also eat lambs and sheep?
- Alternative hook with adjusted wording as suggested. QPQ provided, but note that this was nominated before the rules changed. Oceanh (talk) 09:50, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
Reviewer needed to check ALT1. (Panyd, did you want to finish this off?) BlueMoonset (talk) 18:19, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
The article has met the GA criteria and been reviewed by an editor in good standing. No significant changes have been made since then, so I will assume it still meets them. It is long enough, well written, and neutral. It was nominated within 4 days of passing, so new enough. The hook fact is supported by the sources. Also, the nomination was made before the motion to require QPQ for non-self-noms was passed, so no QPQ needed. Good to go. G S Palmer (talk • contribs) 15:09, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
