Talk:Madras Crocodile Bank Trust/GA1: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 18:16, 9 July 2024

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

Nominator: Magentic Manifestations (talk · contribs) 10:02, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: Reconrabbit (talk · contribs) 14:45, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Reconrabbit Thanks for taking it up. Will address the comments as they come! Magentic Manifestations (talk) 15:03, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I copy-edited some minor things for clarity and grammar last week, and since no one else has started a review I will do it now.

References are formatted correctly. Y
External links appropriate. Y
No copyright violations found, version is distinct from other language Wikipedias. Y

Sources check, numbers based on this revision:

[1] Y
[2] Y
[5] Y Date given is inconsistent and the source for this information does not look great. 1975 looks to be the correct year which agrees with this site and [6]. Modified the source
[6] Y
[13] Y
[37] Y
[47] Y Not a very strong source, primary research only cited once. There is a possible better reference from C. J. Stevenson here. Added the source
[57] N Self-published source on a blog. Better references are available. Removed the source and tweaked the sentence
[77] Y

All images are tagged with licenses. Y
Y The infobox and caption states that the location is abbreviated "CrocBank" but this is never stated in the article or with a reference.
Y There are a lot of images, and one of the two pictures of the reptile demonstration building could be removed.

There are no edit wars, content disputes in the article's recent history. No maintenance tags on the article either. Y
Article is written from a neutral point of view, and is not promotional of the topic. Y
Broadly covers relevant information to the subject. Y
Y The information on reptile stock may be too detailed and not generally useful to a reader. Is this kind of list standard in other wildlife conservation area articles?

Good Article review progress box

Criteria: 1a. prose () 1b. [[MOS:|MoS]] () 2a. ref layout () 2b. cites WP:RS () 2c. no WP:OR () 2d. no WP:CV ()

3a. broadness () 3b. focus () 4. neutral () 5. stable () 6a. free or tagged images () 6b. pics relevant ()

Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked are unassessed

@@ Line 23: / Line 23: @@
 * [1] {{Tick}}
 * [2] {{Tick}}
-* [5] {{Mby}} Date given is inconsistent and the source for this information does not look great. 1975 looks to be the correct year which agrees with [https://wildlife.odisha.gov.in/crocodileconservation this site] and [6].
+* [5] {{Mby}} Date given is inconsistent and the source for this information does not look great. 1975 looks to be the correct year which agrees with [https://wildlife.odisha.gov.in/crocodileconservation this site] and [6]. {{blue|Modified the source}}
 * [6] {{Tick}}
 * [13] {{Tick}}
 * [37] {{Tick}}
-* [47] {{Mby}} Not a very strong source, primary research only cited once. There is a possible better reference from C. J. Stevenson [https://www.researchgate.net/publication/269286880_Conservation_of_the_Indian_Gharial_Gavialis_gangeticus_successes_and_failures_Indian_Gharial_Conservation_Successes_and_Failures here].
+* [47] {{Mby}} Not a very strong source, primary research only cited once. There is a possible better reference from C. J. Stevenson [https://www.researchgate.net/publication/269286880_Conservation_of_the_Indian_Gharial_Gavialis_gangeticus_successes_and_failures_Indian_Gharial_Conservation_Successes_and_Failures here]. {{blue|Added the source}}
-* [57] {{Cross}} Self-published source on a blog. Better references are available.
+* [57] {{Cross}} Self-published source on a blog. Better references are available. {{blue|Removed the source and tweaked the sentence}}
 * [77] {{Tick}}
 }}