Wikipedia:Peer review/Jerusalem Biblical Zoo/archive1
| Toolbox |
|---|
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I believe it has the potential for FA. I expanded the information nearly fivefold using a broad selection of sources, and tried to write a tight, organized and informative presentation. I also added appropriate photos. Did I succeed? Thanks, Yoninah (talk) 20:38, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
Finetooth comments: You succeeded in creating an interesting, enjoyable, well-illustrated, well-sourced article. However, it's not yet ready for FAC. I have concerns mainly about the lead, the layout, and other Manual of Style issues, as noted below, but none should prove too difficult to address.
Heads and subheads
- Wikipedia heads should be telegraphic. They normally do not use words like "the", for example. Thus "Complaints from the neighbors" would be better as "Complaints from neighbors" and perhaps even better as "Neighbors' complaints". WP:MOS#Article titles, headings, and sections has details.
Lead
- The lead is to be an inviting summary of the whole article rather than an introductory paragraph. My rule of thumb is to include in the lead at least a mention of each of the main text sections and not to include anything important in the lead that is not developed in the main text. The existing lead says nothing about history, expansion plans, conservation, and so on. WP:LEAD has details.
Layout
- File:Teddy Jerusalem Zoo.jpg would look better if positioned on the right side of the page so that the elephant looks into the page instead of out. On the other hand, the zoo train and the oryx are positioned correctly, facing in. Some of the others, like the zebras, are directional too and might look better if shifted to the opposite side.
- Images should fit inside the sections they illustrate and not overlap two sections or displace heads or edit buttons. On my screen, the elephant displaces the "Zoo today" head, and File:Jerusalem Zoo petting.jpg displaces the "Special events" head. MOS:IMAGES has details.
- Another thing to look out for are text sandwiches between images on opposite sides of the article. On my screen, the zoo train and the artificial lake create a partial text sandwich of about three lines. This and the problems layout problems mentioned above can usually be fixed by moving images around. The zoo train could come down a few lines, for example.
Food sources
- "The massive amount of fruits and vegetables consumed daily by the zoo's animals... " - Would it be possible to quantify this? How massive?
References
- Newspaper names like The Jerusalem Post should appear in italics.
Image licenses
- Most are "own photo" and look fine. The one that worries me is the wonderful photo of the Shulovs with the python, File:Shulov2.jpg. It would be helpful to the image reviewers if you could translate the non-English parts of the description into English and, if possible, add the date. Otherwise, the reviewers might be unable to say whether the license is valid or not. I would also recommend changing the caption slightly to "Shulov and his wife, Jochebed, holding a python" so that she is not just reduced to nameless "wife".
Other
- The tools in the toolbox at the top of this page find one dead link in the citations and seven links in the text that go to disambiguation pages rather than their intended targets.
- Captions that consist solely of sentence fragments do not take terminal periods. "Shulov and wife holding a python" is an example. On the other hand, the following caption is fine with a period because it is a complete sentence: "Arabian oryx roam in an open reserve."
- Extremely short sections and extremely short paragraphs give the article a choppy look and feel. Two possible solutions are to expand or merge. For example, the orphan paragraph at the end of the "Food sources" section could be merged with the larger paragraph above it, and "Animal species" could be merged with "Animal exhibits". I think some of the other subsections could be eliminated; for example, I'm not sure "Complaints from the neighbors" should remain. It's not needed to break up the "History" section, and it doesn't seem to describe much of the material below it. I'd be inclined to delete the "Special events" subhead and simply let its material be a paragraph in the overall section, "Visitors and volunteers".
- "The center was named in memory of Dr. Gabi Eshkar, deputy director-general and chief veterinarian of the zoo... " - Wikipedia articles usually avoid academic titles like "Dr." and instead rely on descriptions like "deputy director-general and chief veterinarian of the zoo". I'd recommend deleting "Dr.".
- It's generally better to avoid words like "today", "current", and "now" to describe events since what is current in 2010 may not be by, say, 2012. The subhead, "The zoo today" is an example. Better might be "Description".
I hope these suggestions prove helpful. If so, please consider reviewing another article, especially one from the PR backlog at WP:PR; that is where I found this one. I don't usually watch the PR archives or check corrections or changes. If my comments are unclear, please ping me on my talk page. Finetooth (talk) 03:10, 2 January 2011 (UTC)