Talk:Mermaid/GA1

GA Review[edit]

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

Reviewer: Chiswick Chap (talk · contribs) 16:48, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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.	OK
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	Have rearranged and merged some sections. Style acceptable. Lists n/a. Plot summaries not excessive.
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.	OK. Some untidiness as some names have forename surname, some surname, forename: not a pass/fail issue for GA.
	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).	OK, citations wherever necessary. There is a somewhat commercial link in 'Cosplay' but it seems to be needed by the context.
	2c. it contains no original research.	The article has struggled since its earliest uncited beginnings back in 2002 with a systemic bias to popular culture. The current article is far more scholarly and now presents a reasonable balance of cultures and is suitably well-written.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	~~See next item.~~
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	~~Rather too much on 'Scandinavia' with excessive detail on 'The Little Mermaid', but nothing else there (what about "Sjöjungfrun", or the freshwater sprite "näcken") - at least a brief mention?~~
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	OK.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	Not an issue.
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.	Images from Commons.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	All are directly relevant. Have cut down modern depictions to 1 per artist (some need exact dates); and the key one mentioned in the text, that of John William Waterhouse, is lacking. Not pass/fail issues.
	7. Overall assessment.	Mermaid is now an informative and trustworthy article. Given the well-meant popular pressure, it will need to be monitored for WP:OR and balance, but with the range of references and the current balance and organisation of the text, it should be possible to accommodate new stories and media references without infringing WP:UNDUE.