Talk:Jatayu Earth's Center Nature Park/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Bharatiya29 (talk · contribs) 08:53, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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.	"They wish to build" in the lead section should be replaced by "He wish to build", as you have mentioned that only one person visited the Park. The sculpture is the world’s largest bird sculpture. The fact that it is not open to public yet makes no difference. "Park is actually situated" --- What is the need of the word "actually"?
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	The lead is only meant to be an introduction to the article. All the points mentioned in it must be elaborated further in appropriate sections. I think that PPP and BOT should be expanded. I don't get the whole purpose of the Location section. It should rather mention the place where the Park is situated and the whole environment around it (like the forests which the sources have also mentioned). Distances from nearest city, railway station and airport can be mentioned; but such an extensive list is more suited to a travel guide, which Wikipedia is not.
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).	Sourcing doesn't seems to be an issue.
	2c. it contains no original research.
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.	The article seems to have cases of close paraphrasing. Refer to Copyvio detector.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	Sorry to say but the article fails to give detailed coverage of the topic. Some of the facts which need to be mentioned are The article (other than the infobox) has no mention of designer Rajiv Anchal. Similarly no mention of the private partner in this PPP model. The land was given on lease by the state government but no the article doesn't say anything about that. A mere list won't work in the Facilities section. You will have to elaborate. You must mention that the park is meant to provide support to local communities. Dubai Tourism is actually linked to this project and providing technical and logistical support The Park is planned to be eco-friendly and have projects like rainwater harvesting and renewable energy. That is an important point to make.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	A mythological description of Jatayu is well under scope given the religious nature of the park.
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	No bias whatsoever.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	No ongoing edit-wars.
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.
	7. Overall assessment.	The main problem here is that the article does not give certain required details about the park. I read the sources and all of them seems to have almost the same facts. I would advice you to wait till the park gets open and receives coverage in other Indian and overseas newspapers or websites. Once the article has some more content and touches upon all major aspects of the park, feel free to renominate. Thanks! Bharatiya 29 09:49, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]