Talk:History of Edinburgh Zoo/GA1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA Review[edit]

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

Reviewer: Khazar2 (talk · contribs) 17:12, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'll be glad to take this one. I'll do a careful readthrough of the article in the next 3-4 days, followed by a formal checklist of the criteria. Looking forward to working with you. -- Khazar2 (talk) 17:12, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry to be slower than planned in starting on this. I'll do my readthrough now. -- Khazar2 (talk) 15:55, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lead[edit]

The lead section should better summarize the article per WP:LEAD. Please make sure all of the article's subsections are covered here. -- Khazar2 (talk) 15:55, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for adding this. I removed one sentence that seemed to me unneeded and perhaps slightly editorializing, but otherwise it looks great. -- Khazar2 (talk) 14:53, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

First readthrough[edit]

  • "To this day" -- this statement could become dated. Consider "as of December 2012, the zoo was..." or whatever the most up-to-date source is. -- Khazar2 (talk) 16:11, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "a wealthy Scottish publisher and bookseller" and " Scottish accountant William Keith" probably don't need the Scottish--I think the reader will assume these individuals living in Scotland are Scottish unless told otherwise. I could be wrong, though; this one's only a suggestion. -- Khazar2 (talk) 16:14, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This looks like solid work overall, and appears comprehensive. I'll begin the checklist now.

Checklist[edit]

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. Prose is excellent, and spot checks reveal no copyright issues.
1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation. Yes.
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.
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.
3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
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.
6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions. A terrific range of images.
7. Overall assessment. Article passes--excellent work.