Difference between revisions of "Template:Did you know nominations/Tourist attractions in Udaipur"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
imported>Mandarax m (Trim caption) |
imported>Dan arndt (feedback) |
||
| Line 22: | Line 22: | ||
--> | --> | ||
| − | :* | + | [[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
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
Tourist attractions in Udaipur
- ... that the Sajjangarh Biological Park, one of the Tourist attractions in Udaipur had received more than 46,000 visitors in a month, generating a revenue of Rs 14 lakh for the forest department, which is a record in itself?
- Reviewed: Sajjangarh Biological Park
5x expanded by Vishal0soni (talk). Nominated by Vishal0soni (talk) at 06:34, 30 August 2015 (UTC).
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). ·
