Talk:Mermaid

  1. Home
  2. Wiki
Good articleMermaid has been listed as one of the Philosophy and religion good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
November 19, 2012Good article nomineeListed
September 30, 2025Good article reassessmentKept
Current status: Good article

Semi-protected edit request on 1 November 2024

[edit]

Potential improvements to the page:

  1. In Scandinavian folklore, replace the picture of the Margýgr with https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Flateyjarbok_Olaf_Tryggvason_(cropped).jpg, same picture but with the tail.
  2. Wrong link in reference 182, replace with https://archive.org/details/the-greenwood-encyclopedia-of-folktales-and-fairy-tales/page/621/mode/2up.
  3. In Chinese folklore, remove the wikipedia link of the word "chiru" which points to an unrelevant page.
  4. Remove or merge "Indian Folklore" which says the same things as the introduction of "Southeast Asia and Polynesia".
  5. In African Folklore, "juengu" should read "jengu".

Thanks!
Jethro8 (talk) 07:56, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Done All of these seem to be good edits. Hopefully I didn't screw up the interlanguage link template. Thanks for the suggestions. DrOrinScrivello (talk) 17:28, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
{{interlanguage link}} requires Chinese article name (zh:赤鱬) when language=zh. I fixed it to chiru [zh] --Kiyoweap (talk) 00:39, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

GA concerns

[edit]

I am concerned that this article no longer meets the good article critiera. Some of my concerns are outlined below:

  • There are uncited statements throughout the article.
  • There is an orange "expansion needed" banner from 2022 at the top of the "Myth interpretations" section
  • There are a lot of small, one sentence paragraphs, negatively affecting the readability of the article. These should be merged together or removed if the statement is not needed.
  • Per WP:NOTGALLERY, the gallery section at the end of the article should probably be removed, and the images redistributed throughout the article if possible.

Is anyone willing to address these concerns, or should this go to WP:GAR? Z1720 (talk) 16:08, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Generally agreed, except on the fourth point. WP:NOTGALLERY says that Wikipedia is not a repository of images. It does not say that gallery sections are prohibited. Other PAG explains that images should accompany prose, but if there are good images of the subject in general that can't be conveniently attached to a particular passage of text, they can be placed below the prose in a gallery section as a sort of an appendix. Naturally, there shouldn't be too many such images, and in this article, I would say that are too many. At the same time, the images are generally good. An article with a gallery section can become a featured article. There are featured articles with gallery sections. Mere existence of a gallery section is not a reason for a GAR.—Alalch E. 16:51, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In above thread, Jethro8 usefully points out specific improvements. Blanket statement about uncited claims occurring "throughout", not so useful, as I'm not seeing many.
Please clarify with specifics, e.g., "shipwreck" or "flood" in lede. Fixed--Kiyoweap (talk) 03:35, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Do we even need a "Myth interpretations" section? To the Dorothy Dinnerstein (Freudian material), just add some "Jungian" school material, rename section as "Psychoanalysis", then detag. zap. we're done.--Kiyoweap (talk) 01:32, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm doing Wikipedia:The World Destubathon right this month. I don't understand why you cant search for refs yourself (or make the determination to delete) if it's bothering you now, instead of calling me up after months? Are you talking about specific Japanese material? --Kiyoweap (talk) 03:46, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Kiyoweap: I am sorry again for not responding sooner: I am more likely to see responses if I am pinged. I am participating in a sweep of good articles, especially articles like this one which were promoted a while ago, to ensure that they still meet the GA criteria. I post on the talk pages to see if there are editors who are willing to make the suggested edits. Since you responded above on what needed to be done to improve the article, I wanted to ping you to see if you were interested. Unfortunately, I do not have the time nor the desire to bring this article back to meet the GA criteria myself. There is no pressure to do anything, as we are all volunteers. I just wanted to ask first before bringing this to WP:GAR. Z1720 (talk) 00:40, 16 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Z1720:, the threat of demotion from GA status certainly is a pressure tactic, AFAIC, but letting that point slide..
I didn't see such scale of unreferenced omissions, etc., and the tedium of WP:GAR (with the forced 10 or 14 day scheduling pressure) to try to do a few fixes would be overkill.
So to answer your question should this go to WP:GAR? my answer is a resounding no.
The better way, as I already sort of suggested, whoever notices a specific bug to fix it yerself, or do line-item WP:BRD, which is not time-pressured. --Kiyoweap (talk) 03:20, 16 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Kiyoweap: The processes at WP:GAR have changed substantially over the past few months. Some notable changes are that GARs stay open for a minimum of one month (unless there is a consensus for the article to "keep" its status) and will stay open longer if editors indicate they want to improve the article. I have seen GARs open for 2-3 months, leading to a "keep".
There have been conversations at WT:GA about what the goal of GAR: while there are conflicting philosophies, there has been pushback that GAR is a "pressure tactic". My philosophy is that GAR is a review process to determine if the article meets the GA criteria and to generate interest amongst editors who are not watchlisting the article. A recently added statement, "Wikipedia is not compulsory and editors should not insist that commentators, interested editors, or past GAN nominators make the suggested changes, nor should they state that edits should have been completed before the GAR was opened" is meant to prevent editors from arguing about who should do the work, and instead focus on the article quality.
As I review the article today, I still many of the same things that I pointed out in my review in November. No one has to address these; we are all volunteers. I can't WP:BRD the article because I am choosing to spend my time reviewing all good articles: no one editor can BRD all 42,000+ GAs to ensure they meet the GA criteria. If no one on this talk page is interested in addressing the concerns, hopefully a GAR will find an editor that is interested. Z1720 (talk) 04:02, 16 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

GA Reassessment

[edit]

Mermaid

[edit]

The following discussion 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.

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review
Result: Kept. Hog Farm Talk 02:10, 30 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There are uncited statements throughout the article. There is an orange "expansion needed" banner from 2022 at the top of the "Myth interpretations" section. There are a lot of small, one sentence paragraphs, negatively affecting the readability of the article. These should be merged together or removed if the statement is not needed. Z1720 (talk) 17:37, 7 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Just on the citations point, the article already has over 400 of them plus around 50 entries in the bibliography. If anything, they need weeding out, perhaps seeing if the best sources have material that could be used instead of some of the weaker ones. I don't think that adding more references just to increase the density of citations/refs is a good idea. --Northernhenge (talk) 17:55, 7 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Northernhenge: I do not think the GA criteria is concerned with the quality of the sources (as long as they are reliable) or if an article has too many. However, editors are encouraged to remove lower-quality sources if a higher-quality source can be used instead. However, all text in a good article should be sourced (with notable exceptions like the lead) which means the article will need additional inline citations and possibly additional sources. Z1720 (talk) 18:07, 7 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it's a worthy thought but it concerns neither GA nor GAR. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:17, 7 September 2025 (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.