Talk:Trapper Nelson

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Trapper Nelson/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: Noted 7 ^{(t · c)}
Reviewer: Quadell ^(talk) 13:43, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
	1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	The prose is generally excellent. I have reworded a few parts for clarity and tone.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	There are a few problems, described below.
	2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	The references section is fine.
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).	The inline citations are great, but I have a few nitpicks, listed below.
	2c. it contains no original research.	One problem, see below.
	3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	No problems.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	No problems.
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	No problems here.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	No problems in this area.
	6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	Checking on the one image...
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	No problems in this area.
	7. Overall assessment.	The "remaining issues" were not resolved. If these are fixed, please feel free to renominate.

Remaining issues

• The 3rd paragraph in "Decline" has a number of surprising statements, any of which could be challenged, and there are three footnotes together at the end of the paragraph. I don't think all three sources confirm each fact. It would be better to have some of the individual claims referenced independently.

• The "Harvey, Dorothy" footnote #7 does indeed confirm that someone named Ellison Wilson (among others) visited the zoo, but it doesn't indicate who he was. He doesn't seem notable. Would it be better to simply say the following? "Locally prominent people and celebrities alike visited,{citation 7 goes here} including boxing champion..."

• In the last paragraph of "Death", I don't think DuBois' quote adds anything to the article. It works better without it, in my opinion.

• It gets too close to original research with the "it may have been possible for someone to sneak up on him" bit. The source attributes this speculation to Joe Vleck, the last man to see Nelson alive. I think the article should attribute the guess instead of stating it, even if it's only attributed to "a neighbor" or somesuch.

• Do we have a good estimate for how long he was dead when he was found? One source indicates it was at least a week... do any get more specific? Can we be sure he died in 1968?

• A Persondata box is needed.

• Better categories are needed. We can get more specific than "people from Florida".

• According to WP:LEAD, the lede should summarize all parts of the article, but the "Early life" and the first half of "Settlement..." aren't summarized in the lede. Also, since the lede shouldn't provide info not included in the body of the article, it doesn't need footnotes. The "Tarzan of the Loxahatchee" moniker is referenced to "Jupiter Kid's History" in the lede, but this should be cited in the "Settlement..." section instead. The other lede footnote is redundant with the body.

• The only image is mistagged on Commons, and will probably be deleted. See Wikipedia:Media copyright questions#Trapper Nelson with alligator. Are there any free images anywhere of this guy? Or of the park? Any non-free images on Flickr we could e-mail and ask if they'll release under a free license?

File:Trapper Nelson with alligator.jpg Nominated for Deletion

	An image used in this article, File:Trapper Nelson with alligator.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests July 2011 What should I do?
	A discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. If you feel the deletion can be contested then please do so (commons:COM:SPEEDY has further information). Otherwise consider finding a replacement image before deletion occurs. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 12:53, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Trapper Nelson/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Roh^G ??· 16:59, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Nominator:Quadell

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
	1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	Yes!the lead is good
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	Yes!It follows MoS
	2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	Yes!
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).	Quiet good.
	2c. it contains no original research.	Not at all.
	3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	yes.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	Well Focused and not controversial.
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	Yes
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	It doesn't have at-least 60 edits from its creation and not more than 30 since 2010
	6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
	7. Overall assessment.	Done!

Errors/Comments

• "Tarzan of the Loxahatchee". citation?
  • The lede doesn't have footnotes, per WP:LEAD. But the same quote is cited to footnote #7 down in the "Settlement on the Loxahatchee" section. – Quadell ^(talk) 21:41, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

 Done

• The reference which is used as "Jupiter Kids History: Trapper Nelson". was dead.
  • Oops, you're right. I've fixed that. – Quadell ^(talk) 21:41, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

 Done

• as per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (numbers), there should be a non-breaking space -   between a number and the unit of measurement.240 pounds->240 pounds.
  • Good point. I've fixed that now. – Quadell ^(talk) 21:45, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

 Done