Talk:Muja (alligator)

Muja (alligator) has been listed as one of the Natural sciences good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Review: May 23, 2022. (Reviewed version).

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Muja (alligator) article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Serbia Low‑importance

	Serbia portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Serbia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Serbia on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SerbiaWikipedia:WikiProject SerbiaTemplate:WikiProject SerbiaSerbia articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Zoo

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Zoo, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics related to zoos, aquaria, and aviaries on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ZooWikipedia:WikiProject ZooTemplate:WikiProject ZooZoo articles

Amphibians and Reptiles Low‑importance

	Muja (alligator) is part of WikiProject Amphibians and Reptiles, an effort to make Wikipedia a standardized, informative, comprehensive and easy-to-use resource for amphibians and reptiles. If you would like to participate, you can choose to edit this article, or visit the project page for more information.Amphibians and ReptilesWikipedia:WikiProject Amphibians and ReptilesTemplate:WikiProject Amphibians and Reptilesamphibian and reptile articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Untitled

the second link is dead

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 24 August 2020 and 9 December 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Haileylab. Peer reviewers: Emoore3, Connor.new, Jonpaullarson, Superduperdog, Cocacolaperson.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 13:47, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Muja (alligator)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: PCN02WPS (talk · contribs) 05:07, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, comments are below and the article is on hold. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 05:07, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Lead and infobox

"and the oldest known alligator in captivity" → reads more naturally as "and is the oldest known alligator in captivity"
"Having arrived to the zoo in 1937" → would word this as "Having arrived at the zoo in 1937"
I suppose it can be inferred, but his estimating hatching date ("1920s–1930s") given in the infobox is not mentioned in the body of the article.

Life

"he arrived to the zoo" → "he arrived at the zoo"
Sourcing gets a little sparse here, after the second sentence. If all of that is sourced to reference 2, you can use the named reference after sentences it supports
link "German bombing of Belgrade" to Operation Retribution (1941)
link "Allied bombing of Belgrade" to Bombing of Belgrade (1944)
"The average lifespan of an American alligator is between 35 and 50 years" → this sentence reads as somewhat choppy compared to the rest of the paragraph and appears slightly out of place; I'd either combine with the sentence after it or add some sort of remark about Muja himself.
~~Amanuensis Balkanicus, the points in this section don't appear to have been addressed. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 15:52, 23 May 2022 (UTC)~~[reply]

Nevermind, excuse me being stupid. I was looking at an old revision, so of course they don't look like they've been addressed. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 15:54, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Health and lifestyle

"He is fed once a week and usually eats between {{convert|5|kg}} and {{convert|6|kg}} of meat." → "He is fed once a week and usually eats {{convert|5-6|kg}} of meat." This simplifies the "convert" code and eliminates repetition of the units; this change also necessitates removal of the word "between" per MOS:RANGE.
"Due to his old age, it is difficult for him to hunt for his food. Instead, zookeepers place it right in front of his jaw." → this sounds a little choppy, I'd combine these into one sentence.
The quotes from Rakočević are presented sort of like they're in a news article, especially since the first one isn't introduced as such. I think paraphrasing these would read better, or perhaps using only one part of one of the quotes while paraphrasing the rest.
Is there a reason he was separated from the alligators from Cuba?

References and categories

A few links to add: Johns Hopkins University Press (No. 1), Guinness World Records (2), Belgrade Zoo (3), Reuters (4), Texas A&M University Press (5), Associated Press (6), Bangkok Post (8), Reuters (10)
The website parameter for No. 11 should be formatted as the name of the website as opposed to the URL, as the rest of the references are.
I'm not sure what the fix for this is, but can we include the article in Category:1930s animal births and not Category:1920s animal births, despite the fact that we don't know which decade he hatched in?
I've also just noticed that refs 10 and 11 appear to be the same, so they don't need to be separate.

Thanks for reviewing this, PCN02WPS. I've made the changes you suggested. The source doesn't say why he was separated from the other alligators, but I'm guessing it had something to do with giving him space to recover. I'm also not sure what the best approach would be regarding the decade of birth categories, so I added both. What do you think? Amanuensis Balkanicus (talk) 05:10, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think that's a reasonable approach, since there's no way to know which decade is actually the correct one. Well done on the article, I'm happy to give it a pass. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 16:07, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]