Talk:Mudumalai National Park/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Kpddg (talk · contribs) 02:34, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello BhagyaMani. I will be reviewing this article over the coming days. Please let me know for any problems. Thank You. Kpddg ^(talk) 02:51, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Section-wise Assessment

Lead Section

This section has several unsourced statements, which have been marked. Please add reliable citations.
As already explained in my recent edit summary, ALL of these statements are referenced in the sections. In all the GA + FA pages I contributed too, the leads are summaries of info provided in sections, without repeating sources. – BhagyaMani (talk) 09:22, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Okay then Kpddg ^(talk) 10:00, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

History

'₹' sign comes before the amount. It says that the project had been extended till 2021. What happened to it now?

Done. Re extension: if funds will be released for the comings years, it may be too early now to announce this now. – BhagyaMani (talk) 09:34, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Geography

There is an unsourced statement, which has been marked.
This sentence IS sourced by the ref <ref name=Hedge_al2000/> at the end of the 2nd sentence. To make this more clear, I placed a ; between the 2 sentences. – BhagyaMani (talk) 09:44, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Mudumalai National Park is located in the eastern hills of the Western Ghats, covering 321 km2 (124 sq mi), at an elevation range of 850–1,250 m (2,790–4,100 ft). Add commas
I revised the sentence so that commas are not needed. – BhagyaMani (talk) 09:44, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
In climate, all the sources are old. Are the figures still the same?
Climate does not change that frequently. And later authors state basically the same figures, but most without referencing. So I traced these figures back to these two sources. – BhagyaMani (talk) 09:44, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

👍 Kpddg ^(talk) 10:01, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Flora

Reference 18 is very old (from 2008). Update that and the corresponding sentence.
Old does not make it unvalid. And it's not like botanists are inventoring plant species in the same area every other decade: see the next source no. 14 dating to 1978. Number of species in MNP hasn't changed significantly since then. – BhagyaMani (talk) 09:51, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Fine. I was just checking, since you have a better knowlegde of the topic. Kpddg ^(talk) 10:03, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Otherwise, it looks fine

Fauna

There are too many images here, causing overcrowding. Only keep the best ones and format them better. Currently, it is not looking very neat.
I fully agree!! Please let me know HOW MANY do you suggest to keep? I'll remove 2 now. – BhagyaMani (talk) 09:58, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Images to remove

•Moyar River Theppakadu Mar21 A7C 00304.jpg

•Gaur on the bank of Moyar in Sigur Range AJTJohnsingh.jpg

•Crested Hawk Eagle Rodent Mudumalai Mar21 DSC01433.jpg

This should be fine BhagyaMani. Kpddg ^(talk) 10:07, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Well, there was one editor who kept insisting on many more images than displayed now. And I think that the 2 in the section Flora represent both flora and habitat types in MNP quite well, so opt to keep them both. – BhagyaMani (talk) 10:39, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Since the one of the crested hawk eagle has a quality img tag, I would like to keep this as well. – BhagyaMani (talk) 10:39, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Instead of the gaur, I propose to show one of Asian elephants, also because MNP is an important ele corridor in the Western Ghats. – BhagyaMani (talk) 10:39, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Fine @BhagyaMani, go ahead. Just make sure that it does not get too crowded Kpddg ^(talk) 12:23, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

- Mammals
  - Looks fine

- Birds
  - Good

- Reptiles
  - Good

- Fishes
  - Fine

Threats

Update reference 56 and the corresponding sentence
I haven't come across a later estimate of firewood need. – BhagyaMani (talk) 10:09, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
2019 forest fires here have not been mentioned
As you surely noticed, I refrain from using newspapers as sources. Verma et al. (2017) is the latest peer-reviewed article on forest fires in MNP I was able to find. If the 2019 fire is mentioned in such an article, I will be happy to reference this here. – BhagyaMani (talk) 10:09, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There are several news sources I found. E.g. https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/tamil-nadu/forest-fire-in-mudumalai-tiger-reserve-contained-to-an-extent/article26378063.ece This is just one, there are others as well.... Kpddg ^(talk) 10:17, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

See section External links : one is already listed there. – BhagyaMani (talk) 10:25, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. I just feel that since it was a major fire, it should be listed in the article. Kpddg ^(talk) 10:30, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This fire is anyway covered in a separate page listed under See also. – BhagyaMani (talk) 10:45, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Fine, atleast change 'between 1999 to 2013' to 2019 or something and change the sentence. Because this cannot just be ignored in the article. Kpddg ^(talk) 12:47, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

On Hold For Improvements

This article is placed On hold for a time period of 1 week. Further decisions will be taken after the above corrections are made. Thank You. Kpddg ^(talk) 05:40, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Final Decision

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
It is reasonably well written. a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): It is factually accurate and verifiable. a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism): It is broad in its coverage. a (major aspects): b (focused): It follows the neutral point of view policy. Fair representation without bias: It is stable. No edit wars, etc.: It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate. a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Overall: Pass:
· · ·

Since you left all the GAList checks empty, i.e. displaying the

symbol : what do you think is still missing for promotion to GA? – BhagyaMani (talk) 13:50, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@BhagyaMani I am waiting for the image problem to be resolved. I feel one of the forest pic can be removed Kpddg ^(talk) 14:22, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Then I opt for the 2nd, as forest is also shown in the ele pic. Ok with you? – BhagyaMani (talk) 16:10, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes Kpddg ^(talk) 16:25, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Done. And added one more ref as a thank you to you. – BhagyaMani (talk) 17:09, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks BhagyaMani for your contributions. This article is Passed. Kpddg ^(talk) 02:17, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

And I thank you for cooperation and suggestions for improving this page. I think this is the second page on an Indian protected area with a GA status. – BhagyaMani (talk) 07:36, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]