This article is within the scope of WikiProject India, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of India-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.IndiaWikipedia:WikiProject IndiaTemplate:WikiProject IndiaIndia articles
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
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.
[5] YDate 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] YNot a very strong source, primary research only cited once. There is a possible better reference from C. J. Stevenson here.Added the source
[57] NSelf-published source on a blog. Better references are available.Removed the source and tweaked the sentence
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. Reconrabbit01:02, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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.