Talk:Conservationists capture most massive Burmese python in Florida history

Review of revision 4681777 [Not ready]

Revision 4681777 of this article has been reviewed by JJLiu112 (talk · contribs) and found not ready at 16:09, 23 June 2022 (UTC). Copyright: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Newsworthiness: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Verifiability: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. NPOV: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Style: Not ready: See hidden text. Comments by reviewer: None added. Questions about the above? Ask. If possible, please address the above issues then resubmit the article for another review (by replacing {{tasks}} in the article with {{review}}). This talk page will be updated with subsequent reviews.

Revision 4681777 of this article has been reviewed by JJLiu112 (talk · contribs) and found not ready at 16:09, 23 June 2022 (UTC). Copyright: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Newsworthiness: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Verifiability: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. NPOV: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Style: Not ready: See hidden text. Comments by reviewer: None added. Questions about the above? Ask. If possible, please address the above issues then resubmit the article for another review (by replacing {{tasks}} in the article with {{review}}). This talk page will be updated with subsequent reviews.

Review of revision 4681893 [Not ready]

Revision 4681893 of this article has been reviewed by JJLiu112 (talk · contribs) and found not ready at 15:57, 24 June 2022 (UTC). Copyright: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Newsworthiness: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Verifiability: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. NPOV: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Style: Not ready: Not sure what the need for the last source is. Comments by reviewer: None added. Questions about the above? Ask. If possible, please address the above issues then resubmit the article for another review (by replacing {{tasks}} in the article with {{review}}). This talk page will be updated with subsequent reviews.

Revision 4681893 of this article has been reviewed by JJLiu112 (talk · contribs) and found not ready at 15:57, 24 June 2022 (UTC). Copyright: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Newsworthiness: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Verifiability: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. NPOV: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Style: Not ready: Not sure what the need for the last source is. Comments by reviewer: None added. Questions about the above? Ask. If possible, please address the above issues then resubmit the article for another review (by replacing {{tasks}} in the article with {{review}}). This talk page will be updated with subsequent reviews.

The last source is there to support the background information about invasive species getting into the wild from both irresponsible pet owners and Hurricane Andrew. This is also how lionfish got into Florida's coastal areas. If you think it superfluous, feel free to remove it. Darkfrog24 (talk) 19:08, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

Sources with info not mentioned IN THE ARTICLE is superfluous. If readers want more info, they can find it themselves. No need to be a curator of further information on their behalf. --JJLiu112 (talk) 19:45, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

Go to the article and hit CTRL-F "Hurricane Andrew." Darkfrog24 (talk) 20:20, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

Thank you. JJLiu112 (talk) 00:19, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

Review of revision 4681970 [Passed]

Revision 4681970 of this article has been reviewed by JJLiu112 (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 05:30, 25 June 2022 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: Go through the edit history to identify the substantial changes for style and consistency for future reference. Things like the captions for images, that there isn't an 'and' between authors of sources and so on shouldn't have to be done by reviewers. The reviewed revision should automatically have been edited by removing {{Review}} and adding {{Publish}} at the bottom, and the edit sighted; if this did not happen, it may be done manually by a reviewer.

Revision 4681970 of this article has been reviewed by JJLiu112 (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 05:30, 25 June 2022 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: Go through the edit history to identify the substantial changes for style and consistency for future reference. Things like the captions for images, that there isn't an 'and' between authors of sources and so on shouldn't have to be done by reviewers. The reviewed revision should automatically have been edited by removing {{Review}} and adding {{Publish}} at the bottom, and the edit sighted; if this did not happen, it may be done manually by a reviewer.

Title

In the article title, why have we gone for "most massive" and not "largest"? [₂₄Cr][talk] 15:02, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

1) Alliteration. 2) It is not necessarily the largest. A longer but lighter python was caught in 2020. So this one is undisputedly the most massive but the earlier one is undisputedly the most long.Darkfrog24 (talk) 00:01, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

Same rationale I checked for. Thanks for ensuring specificity. JJLiu112 (talk) 05:20, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

A good rationale. Cheers for clarifying that. [₂₄Cr][talk] 11:55, 26 June 2022 (UTC)