Talk:Madras Crocodile Bank Trust

GA Review

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.

---

This review is transcluded from Talk:Madras Crocodile Bank Trust/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

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. Y
• Following the initial copy-edit, there are no contradictory or confusing sentences I've found. Y

References

• 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

Images

• 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. resolved
• Y 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. 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? 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 Criteria: 1a. prose () 1b. 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

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.