Talk:Tay Whale/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Cwmhiraeth (talk · contribs) 10:36, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

I propose to take on this review and will be making a first reading in the next couple of days. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:36, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Many thanks for taking this on. Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:49, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

First reading

• Quite an amusing article, well-written and referenced. A few points:

Thanks! Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:17, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

• Struthers is mentioned in the lead but I think when we first come across him in the History section, you should explain who he is.

Done.

• "with flukes 11 feet 4 inches wide." - I would have thought this was the length of the flukes, not the width.

It's certainly their largest dimension, edited accordingly.

• "On the first Sunday, " - perhaps add "it was there" or somesuch.

Done.

• "... the carcass was then stuffed and sewn up" - Do you think "carcass" is the correct word here? Perhaps it is. Some bones removed, embalmed then stuffed.

I think so.

• " for a fee," - perhaps this phrase could go earlier in the sentence.

Done.

That's about it. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:24, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

• I'm wondering about the phrase "notably bad poem". Although I agree with the comment, I think this comes under the NPOV banner. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:56, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the concern, but it isn't my opinion but the common one as in the sources beside the phrase. Mullenger's review begins "The reputation of William McGonagall (1825-1902) as the worst poet in the English language has hardly encouraged composers to embark on settings of his “poetic gems”, as he termed them."[1]. MacDiarmid's magisterial piece, quoted in the footnote, states ""What this [the verses about John Wood and the Tay Whale] amounts to, of course, is simply what quite uneducated and stupid people—the two adjectives by no means necessarily go together, for many uneducated people have great vitality and a raciness of utterance altogether lacking here—would produce if asked to recount something they had read in a newspaper. ... In their retailings of, or comments upon, such matters, the hoi polloi would also reflect their personal feelings, as is done here, by the tritest of emotional exclamations." [2] The article has neutrally reported from reliable sources on this point, which is not controversial. Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:59, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

• Fair enough. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:40, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

This article is well written and laid out. The information is cited to reliable sources with inline citations and the article does not appear to contain any original research. It is stable and neutral, covering the main aspects of the topic without including irrelevant material. The images are suitable and illustrative and, having been created around 1884, are in the public domain. Altogether, this article fulfils the GA criteria. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:59, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Many thanks for the review. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:07, 15 December 2014 (UTC)