- The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was: promoted by Yoninah (talk) 00:59, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
Boobrie[edit]
... 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)
