Talk:Madras Crocodile Bank Trust/GA1: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
Reconrabbit (talk | contribs) struck resolved comments, reply, progress |
|||
| Line 14: | Line 14: | ||
=== Prose === |
=== Prose === |
||
* Lead provides a concise summary of the article's topics. {{Tick}} |
* Lead provides a concise summary of the article's topics. {{Tick}} |
||
* Following the initial copy-edit, there are no contradictory or confusing sentences I've found. {{Tick}} |
|||
=== References === |
=== References === |
||
| Line 23: | Line 24: | ||
* [1] {{Tick}} |
* [1] {{Tick}} |
||
* [2] {{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]. {{blue|Modified the source}} |
* [5] {{Mby}} <s>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].</s> {{blue|Modified the source}} |
||
* [6] {{Tick}} |
* [6] {{Tick}} |
||
* [13] {{Tick}} |
* [13] {{Tick}} |
||
* [37] {{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]. {{blue|Added the source}} |
* [47] {{Mby}} <s>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].</s> {{blue|Added the source}} |
||
* [57] {{Cross}} Self-published source on a blog. Better references are available. {{blue|Removed the source and tweaked the sentence}} |
* [57] {{Cross}} <s>Self-published source on a blog. Better references are available.</s> {{blue|Removed the source and tweaked the sentence}} |
||
* [77] {{Tick}} |
* [77] {{Tick}} |
||
}} |
}} |
||
| Line 34: | Line 35: | ||
=== Images === |
=== Images === |
||
* All images are tagged with licenses. {{Tick}} |
* All images are tagged with licenses. {{Tick}} |
||
* {{Mby}} The infobox and caption states that the location is abbreviated "CrocBank" but this is never stated in the article or with a reference. {{blue|resolved}} |
* {{Mby}} <s>The infobox and caption states that the location is abbreviated "CrocBank" but this is never stated in the article or with a reference.</s> {{blue|resolved}} |
||
* {{Mby}} There are a lot of images, and one of the two pictures of the reptile demonstration building could be removed. {{blue|removed one of the RDC images}} |
* {{Mby}} <s>There are a lot of images, and one of the two pictures of the reptile demonstration building could be removed.</s> {{blue|removed one of the RDC images}} |
||
=== Stability, neutrality, focus === |
=== Stability, neutrality, focus === |
||
| Line 42: | Line 43: | ||
* Broadly covers relevant information to the subject. {{Tick}} |
* Broadly covers relevant information to the subject. {{Tick}} |
||
* {{Mby}} 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? {{blue|Referring to GAs of similar zoo articles (Very few are there!), there is a sea of blue i.e. laundry list of exhibits mentioned. There are no exact count of each animal species though. I am indifferent here. We can probably go with a list if the count seems to be too much data. Thanks!}} |
* {{Mby}} 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? {{blue|Referring to GAs of similar zoo articles (Very few are there!), there is a sea of blue i.e. laundry list of exhibits mentioned. There are no exact count of each animal species though. I am indifferent here. We can probably go with a list if the count seems to be too much data. Thanks!}} |
||
*: I was viewing it on a very wide screen before. It looks better with smaller aspect ratio. It's doing no harm keeping it in and doesn't go against [[MOS:TABLE]]. It's out of the scope of this review. [[User:Reconrabbit|<span style="color:#6BAD2D">Recon</span>]][[User talk:Reconrabbit|<span style="color:#2F3833">rabbit</span>]] 01:02, 10 July 2024 (UTC) |
|||
{| border="0" cellpadding="10" cellspacing="10" align="center" |
{| border="0" cellpadding="10" cellspacing="10" align="center" |
||
| Line 49: | Line 51: | ||
|- |
|- |
||
| '''[[Wikipedia:Good article criteria|Criteria]]:'''<!-- |
| '''[[Wikipedia:Good article criteria|Criteria]]:'''<!-- |
||
--> 1a. '''prose ({{GAList/check| }})'''<!-- |
--> 1a. '''prose ({{GAList/check|y }})'''<!-- |
||
--> 1b. '''[[MOS:|MoS]] ({{GAList/check|y }})'''<!-- |
--> 1b. '''[[MOS:|MoS]] ({{GAList/check|y }})'''<!-- |
||
--> 2a. '''[[MOS:NOTES|ref layout]] ({{GAList/check|y }})'''<!-- |
--> 2a. '''[[MOS:NOTES|ref layout]] ({{GAList/check|y }})'''<!-- |
||
--> 2b. '''cites [[WP:RS]] ({{GAList/check| }})'''<!-- |
--> 2b. '''cites [[WP:RS]] ({{GAList/check|y }})'''<!-- |
||
--> 2c. '''no [[WP:OR]] ({{GAList/check|y }})'''<!-- |
--> 2c. '''no [[WP:OR]] ({{GAList/check|y }})'''<!-- |
||
--> 2d. '''no [[WP:CV]] ({{GAList/check|y }})''' |
--> 2d. '''no [[WP:CV]] ({{GAList/check|y }})''' |
||
| Line 60: | Line 62: | ||
|<!-- |
|<!-- |
||
--> 3a. '''broadness ({{GAList/check|y }})'''<!-- |
--> 3a. '''broadness ({{GAList/check|y }})'''<!-- |
||
--> 3b. '''focus ({{GAList/check| |
--> 3b. '''focus ({{GAList/check|y }})'''<!-- |
||
--> 4. '''[[WP:NPOV|neutral]] ({{GAList/check|y }})'''<!-- |
--> 4. '''[[WP:NPOV|neutral]] ({{GAList/check|y }})'''<!-- |
||
--> 5. '''[[WP:EW|stable]] ({{GAList/check|y }})'''<!-- |
--> 5. '''[[WP:EW|stable]] ({{GAList/check|y }})'''<!-- |
||
--> 6a. '''[[WP:IUP|free or tagged images]] ({{GAList/check|y }})'''<!-- |
--> 6a. '''[[WP:IUP|free or tagged images]] ({{GAList/check|y }})'''<!-- |
||
--> 6b. '''pics relevant ({{GAList/check| |
--> 6b. '''pics relevant ({{GAList/check|y }})''' |
||
|- |
|- |
||
| <small><em>Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the [[WP:GACR|Good Article criteria]]. Criteria marked [[Image:Symbol comment 2.png|14px]] are unassessed</em></small> |
| <small><em>Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the [[WP:GACR|Good Article criteria]]. Criteria marked [[Image:Symbol comment 2.png|14px]] are unassessed</em></small> |
||
Revision as of 01:02, 10 July 2024
GA Review
| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Nominator: Magentic Manifestations (talk · contribs) 10:02, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
Reviewer: Reconrabbit (talk · contribs) 14:45, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
- @Reconrabbit Thanks for taking it up. Will address the comments as they come! Magentic Manifestations (talk) 15:03, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
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.
Prose
- Lead provides a concise summary of the article's topics.
- Following the initial copy-edit, there are no contradictory or confusing sentences I've found.
References
- References are formatted correctly.
- External links appropriate.
- No copyright violations found, version is distinct from other language Wikipedias.
Sources check, numbers based on this revision:
- [1]
- [2]
- [5]
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]
- [13]
- [37]
- [47]
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]
Self-published source on a blog. Better references are available.Removed the source and tweaked the sentence - [77]
Images
- All images are tagged with licenses.
-
The infobox and caption states that the location is abbreviated "CrocBank" but this is never stated in the article or with a reference.resolved -
There are a lot of images, and one of the two pictures of the reptile demonstration building could be removed.removed one of the RDC images
Stability, neutrality, focus
- There are no edit wars, content disputes in the article's recent history. No maintenance tags on the article either.
- Article is written from a neutral point of view, and is not promotional of the topic.
- Broadly covers relevant information to the subject.
- 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? Referring to GAs of similar zoo articles (Very few are there!), there is a sea of blue i.e. laundry list of exhibits mentioned. There are no exact count of each animal species though. I am indifferent here. We can probably go with a list if the count seems to be too much data. Thanks!
- I was viewing it on a very wide screen before. It looks better with smaller aspect ratio. It's doing no harm keeping it in and doesn't go against MOS:TABLE. It's out of the scope of this review. Reconrabbit 01:02, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
Good Article review progress box
|
