Difference between revisions of "Template:Did you know nominations/Tourist attractions in Udaipur"

From blackwiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
imported>Mandarax
m (Trim caption)
imported>Dan arndt
(feedback)
Line 22: Line 22:
 
-->
 
-->
  
:* <!-- REPLACE THIS LINE TO WRITE FIRST COMMENT, KEEPING  :*  -->
+
[[File:Symbol question.svg|16px]] [[User:Dan arndt|Dan arndt]] ([[User talk:Dan arndt|talk]]) 06:04, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
 +
:*The article is new enough created two days before nomination
 +
:*The article is relatively short (approx 1,700 characters) if you exclude the table of fees & charges (which appears to be more travel information/guide) but mets the 1,500 criteria. I would prefer to see more substance to the article as it is a borderline stub article.
 +
:*The article contains a number of grammatical errors
 +
:*There are also a number of significant statements within the article lacking inline citations
 +
:*The article contains a number of local terms that should be linked, to enable readers to understand what is being described.
 +
:*The hook is relatively wordy (coming in at almost 220 characters) and tries to pack in too much information.
 +
:*In respect to the hook, as the reference indicates that the park was only open for two months the early attendance figures are always likely to set a record as there is nothing to compare against (apart from the preceding month).   ·
 +
 
  
 
{{-}}}}<!--Please do not write below this line or remove this line. Place comments above this line.-->
 
{{-}}}}<!--Please do not write below this line or remove this line. Place comments above this line.-->

Revision as of 06:04, 4 September 2015

Tourist attractions in Udaipur

A photograph of the foundation stone of Sajjangarh Biological Park, kept at the entrance gate
Foundation stone of Sajjangarh Biological Park

5x expanded by Vishal0soni (talk). Nominated by Vishal0soni (talk) at 06:34, 30 August 2015 (UTC).

Symbol question.svg Dan arndt (talk) 06:04, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

  • The article is new enough created two days before nomination
  • The article is relatively short (approx 1,700 characters) if you exclude the table of fees & charges (which appears to be more travel information/guide) but mets the 1,500 criteria. I would prefer to see more substance to the article as it is a borderline stub article.
  • The article contains a number of grammatical errors
  • There are also a number of significant statements within the article lacking inline citations
  • The article contains a number of local terms that should be linked, to enable readers to understand what is being described.
  • The hook is relatively wordy (coming in at almost 220 characters) and tries to pack in too much information.
  • In respect to the hook, as the reference indicates that the park was only open for two months the early attendance figures are always likely to set a record as there is nothing to compare against (apart from the preceding month). ·