Wikipedia

Talk:Stoor worm/GA1

< Talk:Stoor worm
Latest comment: 10 years ago by Montanabw in topic Continued review

GA Review

edit
Latest comment: 10 years ago16 comments3 people in discussion
GA toolbox
Reviewing

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

Reviewer: Montanabw (talk · contribs) 06:05, 21 October 2014 (UTC)Reply


I will review this article and will be back with my template and basic comments soon. Montanabw(talk) 06:05, 21 October 2014 (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. Direct quotations seem overused, see notes below. Could use another run of copyediting and smoothing. FIxed, but be careful not to restore problem text now changed...
  1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation. Some layout and organization comments below, comments on lead
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. Formatting issues and some confusion related to the same. See comments below
  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).
  2c. it contains no original research.
3. Broad in its coverage:
  3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic. Any newer analysis Once minor items added, per talk below, this criterion will be met
  3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style). Edits in review period tightened and clarified article
  4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each. Sourcing discussions in the course of the review do not raise neutrality concerns, they only go to referencing, noted elsewhere
  5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. Article was stable for two months preceding beginning of GA review. Changes since are primarily a reaction to reviewer's comments and do not defeat stability
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. All fine
  6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions. all fine
  7. Overall assessment.

Some preliminary comments, feel free to explain, address or dispute as you see fit. Montanabw(talk) 03:47, 23 October 2014 (UTC)Reply

  1. I find the lead/lede a bit short for the complexity of the article; perhaps expand the folk beliefs a little more and consider slight expansions of the first and third paragraphs. Not a lot more to do, but as it sits, I'm not drawn into the article as much as I'd expect with an article about an evil sea serpent!
  2. The Douglas source is cited inconsistently. In FN 1, you are actually citing to Trial Dennison's essay, but the citation form used doesn't really work (we can blame the template, perhaps). FN 16 cites to the tale itself, so perhaps you could either add " "Assipattle and the Mester Stoorworm" there and clarify that FN 1 is actually titled "Notes to Assipattle and the Mester Stoorworm" with a different author (Dennison) or chop the essay from fn 1 and just have say Doublas 299. Whichever works, but as it's the same book, consistency would be helpful. I have no opinion as to which citation format you choose, but right now the two are a bit muddled.
  3. Also, the bibliographic citation to Douglas looks odd. As you cite to the Dennison piece on page 299 and the story itself on page 68, IMHO, I think the citation to " "Assipattle and the Mester Stoorworm"" should be removed from the bibliography and that title kept only in Fn 16. Also, James Torrance is the illustrator of the work, as far as I can tell from the Hathi link, and so there really is no need to add his name in the citation, and the way it's sandwiched between the title of the story and the title of the work is not proper formatting - the template appears to be the problem. If you think it critical to include both Torrance and the fairy tale title in the biblio, then to put Torrance after Douglas and not in the odd spot it's in now, maybe "first1" "last1" "first2 and "last2" are the parameters that will make it look correct. Whatever works.
  4. I guess last but not least, the article says Douglas reprinted Dennison's telling of the tale, so now I'm totally confused. Can you straighten this out for me here? I'm basically just looking for the sources and the article to all be a bit more clear and play more cooperatively with each other.
    As for 2, 3, 4, these have been dealt with AFAIC. It uses {{citation}} and satisfies MOS already, and GAood enough. I made a good faith edit on the citation formats on these, the reviewer reverted it saying it wasn't executed with expert prowess. I'm not going to fix it and fix it ad nauseum till teacher finally approves. If the reviewer is going to revert it and complaining about it, he/she could have spend the 5 minutes instead on fixing it on the spot. Or don't. Remember, I'm not the one trying to promote this article in its current state.--Kiyoweap (talk) 06:39, 25 October 2014 (UTC)Reply
  5. Just my opinion, but unless these sorts of articles all have a standard template or layout, I think the "Textual Sources" section should be last, not first. I'd also put the Origins and Etymology sections next to each other, not separated by the Folk Beliefs section - basically, the tales themselves are the fun part of the article, the academic analyses are the "wonk" parts, and hence I'd keep them grouped accordingly.
    • Textual sources has now been moved but the Etymology and Origins sections are positioned as we have always done for this series of articles. 'Etymology' sections do generally appear early on with the use of italics (see for instance, Australia, Antarctica, Shapinsay or Vampire, all FAs). SagaciousPhil - Chat
  6. FN 2 labeled "Editor" also isn't working for me - it's another Triall Dennison work, his name is not "Editor," so I'd suggest the bibliographic entry simply be listed with the other two (hnnce vol 5, issues 18, 19, and 20 are all together). For the footnotes themselves, given you have two 1891 works in there, you may have to come up with some sort of kludge to make the template behave, perhaps "Dennison-2" or something. Again, whatever works.
  7. I think that direct quotations are a bit overusedhere, perhaps as a way to avoid copyvio problems, which is good, but I'd suggest you do a search and destroy on about half of them. One example is Walter Traill Dennison, who as a boy had "heard many versions of this tale related by Orkney peasants", which could be rephrased to not need the quotation. Another clunky bit is "Herakle's deliverance of Hesione" as a direct quote in the lede; I'd rephrase to avoid the need for that quote there, but perhaps keep it where it occurs later. I don't think all quotes have to go, just the ones that can most easily be rephrased.
  8. I am accustomed to seeing non-English words in italics, but not" words like "stoor worm." (which could, optionally, be placed in quotes if it needs to be highlighted. JMO.
  9. You note Mitgard serpent in the lede, but not in the text, where you only note the name world serpent. (Over here in the US, we hear "Mitgard serpent" more often than "world serpent' so I do favor using both.)
  10. Any way an image guru can brighten up that lead image a bit? I can barely see the creature, it's quite dark. Not a deal-killer, just a side thought.
    • The artwork is dark but reproduced correctly; for instance see Las Meninas, a featured article with a very dark lead image and that is a featured picture as well; it’s not generally considered wise to adjust the lighting of artwork.
  11. Spelt is a grain. (grin) I know this article is in UK English and that's groovy, but if "spelled" is also correct on your side of the pond, it sounds less archaic to use it.
  12. Also a style issue, but I feel that some of the sentences go into run-on sentence land. While Yanks like me are accused of overuse of the comma, here it may be going a bit too far in the other direction. Also there are spots where a semicolon could be a period and the flow would probably be better.
  13. As you do a run-through for the above, maybe look at smoothing things out a bit more overall; I don't think it is helpful to point to 35,000,000 nitpicky things, given your experience, but the article still has that "written by a committee" look about it.
  14. One example: "the king relinquishes his kingdom to Assipattle, who marries Princess Gem-de-lovely is given Odin's sword." Who is given Odin's sword??

All for now, may add a bit more as I go. Montanabw(talk) 03:47, 23 October 2014 (UTC) Feel free to answer below or inline, whichever you preferReply

Collapsing comments of another user who is not the GA reviewer. I have read, considered, and replied
It appears to me Montanabw has gives a large laundry list of minor cosmetic issues. So in spite of the large volume he has written appearing to critique it, it seems to me he's signed off on a Good Article review but for a handful of "minor edit" level corrections needed, and I disagree this is the case. There are a number of substantive issues remaining. I'll just start off with a glimpse of it.
5. Stable. No. As for the way Eric and Sagacious do not properly engage in WP:BRD and thus fail to form consensus, and some of the persisting content/sourcing issues, see Talk:Stoor worm#POV.
Secondly, on the Douglas's edition of Scottish Fairy and Folk tales which offers a reprints W. Traill Dennison's longer version of the "Stoorworm" folktale, I only inserted this a few days ago, and this is probably the single-most important primary source, and Dennison's notes, again, a secondary source of top importance. So an article that hasn't had time to incorporate it with sufficient weight can hardly be said to be complete (Cf. Talk:Stoor worm#Traill Dennison's long version). For example textual comparisons should be against this text, and not an audio-transcript (ref="Education"). In the etymology section, what Dennison says should outweigh Westwood's version, and so on. I expect various updating like this, so you can consider the article not in stasis.
So by corollary, almost, the article in my assessment do not pass the 3. complete, or 2. verifiable, and other counts. I guess I'll articulate these, maybe topic by topic on the talk page.--Kiyoweap (talk) 10:19, 23 October 2014 (UTC)Reply

Note

edit
Issue reviewed, considered, discussed and closed. Now, back to the issues I have raised, please
I hope you can change your mind on this matter; see below. Montanabw(talk) 18:51, 23 October 2014 (UTC)Reply
  • @Kiyoweap:, @Sagaciousphil:, @Eric Corbett:: As the person who initiated the GA review, Kiyoweap can say whatever he/she wants, but the decision to promote or not is mine unless I remove myself from the review. I took on this review specifically because I am aware of the quality of article Corbett can do (I did a peer review on Enid Blyton for this user; this user has done peer reviews and GAN reviews for me). I was not aware upon deciding to do this review that SagaciousPhil was a major contributor until I got underway and dug down into the history. However, though I am in a relatively minor dispute with SagaciousPhil at the moment, (minor by my standards, anyway) I do not believe that issue has any relevance to this article whatsoever (I chose a mythology article in an area where I have no particular expertise in part to avoid modern-day controversy) and frankly, I think for these reasons I can be far more careful about being thorough, but fair and neutral - given the two editors leading this work. Montanabw(talk) 18:51, 23 October 2014 (UTC)Reply
  • My intent is to FIRST look at the wikignoming issues to get those cleaned up, then look at the remaining GA criteria. Interestingly, "comprehensiveness" is not a key component for a GAN, only broad coverage, hitting significant aspects. Thus, Kiyoweap's comments might be apropos for a FAC, but not for a GAN; the sourcing is adequate, GAN is not the place to make perfect the enemy of the good (article). Upon review of Kiyoweap's contributions and talk page comments, it is clear that this is one person with minimal contributions to the article, who has not contributed to it since last August, and a history of editing conflicts, and now a WP:POINTy involvement with the apparent intent to derail a GAN because they didnt; get their way earlier. It is clear from the attempted edit that Kiyoweap lacks the expertise to fix the citation issues I raised above. I will give you all a few ays to think this over and then return for further analysis. Montanabw(talk) 18:51, 23 October 2014 (UTC)Reply
I admit I didn't do my best phrase it with the utmost tact, but was trying to address legitimate concerns, and time was of the essence. The intital 14-point review by Montanabw (compiled without amassing little knowledge about the subject, as the reviewer graciously admits) fails to table any concerns that went to content. But if the agenda was set to these, and time just rolled by, it would amount to filibustering so "real issues" before the "window" of discussion. That is the thrust of my concern.
I started by addressing the "5. Stable" rating, because it is already inclusive of "2. Verifialble" or "4. Neutral" (as several edits in my past meant to redress WP:RS and WP:POV were reverted without follow-up). Since you recognize that there are these edit conflicts, it seems to me a proper job of the reviewer was to compare the dissenting versions and weigh the relative merits, based on substance (and not on formats, etc.). And not to somehow pin it on me for being disruptive, based on your reading of my edit history patterns.
Still, I might have been a bit overharsh; having given another look, there may be some readability issues with readership less familiar, but how much to tailor to introductory reading level... Don't want a total impasse though, so I will meet halfway, it seems now I can cleverly bring up my own concerns/solutions along the points you brought up.--Kiyoweap (talk) 06:39, 25 October 2014 (UTC)Reply
I do not view one disgruntled editor who failed to reach consensus back in August returning now for another bite at the apple during a GAN as making an article "unstable." This article clearly is adequately stable. I saw your discussion of etymology issues on the talk page, and I consider those issues more of a concern for FAC than here; one of your suggestions was taken, it appears, and we cannot always get everything we want. Your own edits since this GA review was opened indicate that you do not understand the citation formatting issues I raised, (as you attempted to cite to the incorrect work) so I do hope you let the others fix these wikignoming issues before we move on to more substantive matters. I would like to see the other editors address those issues and get the article fully cleaned up in that regard. I see some minor content issues I may raise later, but they cannot be addressed until the basic cleanup is completed - some article copyediting inevitably happens when these sort of things are fixed. Montanabw(talk) 02:36, 26 October 2014 (UTC)Reply

Clearly the article is verifiable - the sources match that the article says - and I see no clear POV issues here other than your preference for "mitgard serpent" as the link - that's not a "neutrality" issue here, that's a style issue. Given that all three possible names are used here, and link is to the current article's title (which is preferable to a redirect), that is sufficient for GA. I fail to see anything you raise to be of sufficient substance to stop the review - and do understand that when I say I do not know a lot about the topic, let me clarify that I mean that have no advanced degrees in literature or mythology. Like any person well-educated in the liberal arts, I have, of course, read my Edith Hamilton back as an undergrad, took several humanities and literature courses and have a working knowledge of the core western Civ myths. I am not, however, a specialist. (My actual undergrad degrees were in history and political science, FWIW, English was only my minor, though I am probably only 2-3 courses short of a degree there too, but truly, who needs three undergraduate degrees?). Montanabw(talk) 02:36, 26 October 2014 (UTC)Reply

@Kiyoweap:, @Sagaciousphil:, @Eric Corbett:: I have collapsed the above discussion, as I view these matters as closed. I do hope that we can now proceed with fixing the first round of suggestions I have posted. I may raise other matters, but I want to see how these fixes go first. Montanabw(talk) 02:40, 26 October 2014 (UTC)Reply

  • Unfortunately, despite the efforts of Eric and I to return and begin addressing Montanabw’s review points, Kiyoweap has immediately pursued further disruptive behaviour by ignoring MBW’s advice, request and explanation by mangling another two references. A further demonstration of IDHT tendencies was displayed by also adding further quotations when the reviewer had suggested the amount of these be reduced (most of the previous quotes were not added by Eric and I but we had begun trying to reduce these).
This appears to be a continuation of Kiyoweap’s tendentious behaviour on Kelpie - just one example from many on the Kelpie talk page - Kiyoweap addresses me with: “Glen Keltney" registers low count upon Googling, and you may not be equal to the task.” (my emphasis added). After following me to Ben MacDui’s talk page, not satisfied with the response he received, his advice and opinion is offered to Ben Macdui. His next port of call was the Wiki Project Scotland to “set a quiz” in further attempts to garner support.
Even within this GA review, comments like “I’m not going to fix it and fix it ad nauseum till teacher finally approves” demonstrate an unwillingness or lack of ability to collaborate. SagaciousPhil - Chat 11:00, 28 October 2014 (UTC)Reply
    • And once again this morning, Kiyoweap has undone Montanabw's revert, re-inserting the mangled refs with part of the edit summary stating: "since Montanabw finds task of navigating from the one to the other "incomprehensible"." demonstrating further WP:IDHT. SagaciousPhil - Chat 09:16, 29 October 2014 (UTC)Reply

Continued review

edit
Latest comment: 10 years ago21 comments5 people in discussion
  1. Lead if vastly improved, thank you!
  2. I did a revert of what appears to be Kiyoweap changing links to a nearly indecipherable (to me) original text that does not seem to clarify what was being sourced. It appears you have a problem with a single disgruntled user here, who has failed to establish consensus on at least two other articles, and I find his/her dismissive attitude toward the GA process itself problematic, so let us let that go and focus on content henceforth.
  3. Assorted text improvements help the flow.
  4. You folks have not yet fixed the "Editor" citation in FN 38 and the bibliography. Some of the other citation issues still need a tweak or two. I presume you will get to it?
  5. One thing that Kiyoweap's edits did raise for me is that, where possible, it would be good if you can use sources where a subscription is NOT required. Sources such as Hathi Trust and the one Kiyoweap found, the Internet archive DO have full access. Even though the "audio" source has a full text (and a readable one, no less) if the Internet Archive version contains the same material, I would have no objection to having two footnotes where relevant, the sourcing of the audio version is not noted, so though far more accessible, perhaps a very precise link with page numbers and proper formatting might be useful.

All for now. Montanabw(talk) 23:25, 28 October 2014 (UTC)Reply

As for #2 Montanabw complaining that my url to the HathiTrust page description link was "indecipherable (to me)", I believe this to mean being unable to spot the "Full View" link on it. So replacement with the latter url solved this problem, and insta-reverting the solution is uncalled for.
As per #5 the "audio" scripts refs should be undergoing replacement with "Dennison's long version" refs.
On #5 on Internet archive links I provided, I see no credible reason forthcoming for Sagaciousphil reverting again on this, and all it does impede other editors from fact-checking with the ease of a click away.--Kiyoweap (talk) 11:37, 29 October 2014 (UTC)Reply
  • The Hathi Trust link is unavailable to those outside the United States. "This item is not available online ( Limited - search only) due to copyright restrictions" is what we see elsewhere. Eric Corbett 16:25, 29 October 2014 (UTC)Reply
  • First off, Kiyoweap, let the others do the citation formatting, you aren't doing it properly... (for one thing, "Editor" is not the name of the author of a work!) My suggestion is to link to BOTH sources. I will also note that the WP guidelines for online books generally suggest linking where possible to the specific page in a footnote, and I generally advise linking to a full text version in a source if the book itself has multiple page references. I would advise that people work together here and not insist on only "one right version" - in some cases it is acceptable for there to be two or more footnotes to back up certain things. Where there are online sources, the question of international copyright is a legitimate concern and where possible, links that allow people in both the US and the UK to verify information are helpful. Be careful with page views and snippet views, though, best to check them against an actual hardcopy of there is not a full text version available online. Montanabw(talk) 16:39, 29 October 2014 (UTC)Reply
    I will acknowledge the current fix on "Editor" issue is better than listing Editor among the authors. That said, I am not deserving to be singled out for repeated browbeating from Montanabw about my citation formatting, given that Eric/Sagacious are hardly error-free either, and Montanabw herself demonstrating blunderous lapses that deviate from MOS on citation. When you absorbed the Editor's note into Traill Dennison's 1891 article, you needed to do something like change to "issue=19–20", which would render as "5 (19–20)". Otherwise, add another line of bibliography with issue 20, and the proper way to list two citation by the author for the same year is 1891a and 1891b, as per WP:HARV#Inline citation in the body of the article, not using "Dennison-2" as Montanabw suggests. --Kiyoweap (talk) 09:51, 30 October 2014 (UTC)Reply
      • Kiyoweap, I don't think I actually was actively editing anything, just a couple of reverts so I could see what was going on; I certainly have no intent of making "blunderous lapses," or asking for a specific formatting layout, only that whatever is selected be consistent. 1891a and b works fine, yes. You are not being "singled out for repeated browbeating" by me; you are being told by multiple people not to edit against consensus. It appears that some of the points you have raised are being considered by the others. That said, I would urge you to ASK for consensus on things you want to see raised. The Hathi Trust materials with the longer version of the story may be a legitimate point, but the problem is that when I looked at what you were citing, the content didn't really provide verification to what was being said in the article; also, citations to the same multi-page selection is not as good as citing to specific pages, though formatting the citations is more complex. Montanabw(talk) 19:33, 30 October 2014 (UTC)Reply

As for problems with Stoor worm#Etymology, tagging the section would be overkill beyond my edits themselves, edit summaries, and further annotation with #Etymology, simply below speaking for themselves. Even without tags, the issues are plain right in front of anyone's face, and if Montanabw was genuine about making assessment on them (in reasonably timely manner) she would have got to them, at least on some level, beyond "you are editing against consensus". As I have constantly tried to point out, Wiki consensus is based on persuasion by argument, not counting yea nay votes by rote. Suffice it to say, I have discovered since a couple of days ago that Montanabw is multitasking several reviews for quick turnout in this GA Cup thing, which explains to me why this breezing over the NPOV and RS sourcing assessment on her part.--Kiyoweap (talk) 14:48, 6 November 2014 (UTC)Reply

Update: @Sagaciousphil: and all others: I have reviewed some of the recommended changes that Kiyoweap suggested in his sandbox, User:Kiyoweap/Stoor worm. Here are my comments. Montanabw(talk) 01:42, 7 November 2014 (UTC)Reply

  1. Most of the added verbiage is either not needed or is material that isn't suitable to be incorporated into the article for reason I suggest below:
  2. A list section of "characters" is not needed, as they are discussed in the article text. That said, I think that the bit in Dennisons' notes (p. 300) about how Assipattle, in all tales, is always the youngest son, the one who was not thought to amount to nothing, could be noted in this article. I'd suggest throwing it into the paragraph narrative about Assipattle where you merely say "Assipattle, the youngest son of a local farmer..." While Kiyoweap's version is rather awkward, the bit about how the name suggests groveling in the ashes or how he's the one who does all the dirty work is worth adding; perhaps a sentence or so
      Deferred to to post GA? The point is, it is not true that all the 'characters' have been "discussed in the article text": the horse's name Teetgong is not in there, and the sword name I had inserted but were reverted. I don't insist this should be done as a separate section though, and it can be worked into the article, but I think that would entail recharacterizing the sections from /*Attributes*/ (of serpent) → /*Synopsis*/ (of the tale). However this is goes to widening the Talk:Stoor worm#Scope, so, if you want to defer handling the problem to post-GA that's okay, provided it is understood it is fair and square to reintroduced these later in time.
      Note:Also minor point: right now, the etymology for Assipattle occurs in explanatory note [a] isn't positioned anywhere near Assipattle, so this and the "youngest son" info could be expanded in the text when the hero is mentioned, which is what I tried to do in one edit.
  3. The definition of "Mester" in the etymology section of the current article is better sourced and more acurate, in my view. I read page 300 of Traill Dennisons' notes in the Hathi Trust version of the book. Kiyoweap's proposal to say "Mester Stoorworm "the greatest of the great sea-serpents" is not etymology or word origin of the word "mester"; Dennison is talking about a description of the character; two different things.
      Disagree I have to say you are clueless, and Dennison clearly indicates "mester" means "greatest". Read on, and Dennison says: "Mester, that is master... always means superior -- it may be in strength, etc." It is elementary level exercise even for me to see "muckle, mester stoorworm" probably corresponds to Old Norse mikill mestr stórr ormr. Look up of mestr yields "superlative form of mickle", which is pretty much exactly what Dennison says.
      Adress issue Footnotes currently [1][2] are private websites. How can you say these WP:SPS are "better sourced" over Dennison. This reviewer is winging it on this as well. Also, did you look at the second website to notice it doesn't mention stoor worm or not?--— Preceding unsigned comment added by Kiyoweap (talk • contribs) 13:40, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
  4. Generally text notation of authors in the reference are not needed; Dennison is major, the rest, not so much.
  5. Most of the extra quotes Kiyoweap wants to add are probably superflous. that said, the bit about "The tongue reached out and its forked end "used as a pair of tongs"[11] seized its victims." is kind of colorful, the book itself reads "His terrible tongue was forked. And the prongs of the fork he used as a pair of tongs to seize his prey." (Douglas p. 68) I see no harm in adding something about that, it's a rather unique monster in that respect.

I think just a little more characterization as noted above should do the trick. Bring it a little more alive, do your final cleanup, and we'll be done here. Montanabw(talk) 01:42, 7 November 2014 (UTC)Reply

I will start off with apologizing to user:Montanabw for my skepticism in getting around to address the substantive issues, though so far I'm still seeing just superficial gut instinct response, such as "better.. in my view". But I will respond inline above.
I will add the general comment that if the points on the initial and second sweep of comments are closed, the reviewer and/or the candidates should have been using strikout and/or {{done}} {{close}} etc. to spare the readers a lot of unfruitful reading. --Kiyoweap (talk) 13:40, 7 November 2014 (UTC)Reply
  • Thank you. FWIW, Dennison is not a linguist, he is an expert on mythology, "greatest sea serpent" is a description of the story, not etymology, hence the etymology section is properly sourced. Montanabw(talk) 01:35, 8 November 2014 (UTC)Reply
I still maintain that Dennison's notes is essentially glossary, so the note on Mester Stoor Worm is etymology. But adimittedly his etymology has a bit of flourish beyond dictionary definition. I would be loth to cast it aside, but I suppose it is a viable stance to stick with strictly dictionary (Scottish National Dictionary) definition. However, if that is your editorial policy, in order to be consistent, you would have to throw out non-linguist Westwood's etymology (phrase sourced as [7]) as well. The explanatory notes in [a] is Westwood also, subject to replacement with SND entry assiepattle. Also source [6] which gives "Yorkshire dialect" defiinition is at least better served by SND's maister (var. mester).
I am still convinced the other etymology Eric added is WP:Original Research. But I will agree to take that up with at some later juncture with the WP:DRN boards, soliciting opinions from Wikipedia:WikiProject Norse history and culture and other forums, in a way that doesn't overtax this reviewer's involvement.--Kiyoweap (talk) 19:14, 8 November 2014 (UTC)Reply
The technical disputes you raise (scholarly differences of opinion) are not really part of the scope of GAN, and I have noticed that you raised similar issues at Talk:Kelpie#Etymology, which is now a featured article. I have to say that neither my review of the sources cited nor an analysis of your arguments has changed my mind on the issue. You can, indeed seek other opinions. Montanabw(talk) 06:15, 9 November 2014 (UTC)Reply

 With some recent changes and incorporation of a bit more detail, fixing of footnote formatting and after reviewing alternative proposals, and cited source material, I am passing this article. Montanabw(talk) 08:29, 9 November 2014 (UTC)Reply

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Add topic
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Stoor_worm/GA1&oldid=1076257602"