Talk:Phoenix Zoo

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is part of WikiProject Arizona, a WikiProject related to the U.S. state of Arizona.
GA	This article has been rated as GA-Class on the assessment scale.

	This article is part of WikiProject Zoo, a group dedicated to improving Wikipedia's coverage of topics related to zoos, aquaria, and aviaries. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
GA	This article has been rated as GA-Class on the quality scale.

Phoenix Zoo has been listed as a good article under the good-article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can delist it, or ask for a review.

It has been mentioned in other articles that this was built on the site of a WWII Japanese internment camp and/or a German POW camp ... which of these is true and is this articleworthy? Thanks! -- Miwa * talk * contribs ^_^ 02:42, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

I have not read either of those things in any of the research I have done on the Phoenix Zoo. --Aguerriero (talk) 03:13, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

• • The POW camp was at Papago park, which is right near the zoo. [1]. The Japanese internment was on an Indian reservation. [2]. That roughly jives with my memory. Wikibofh_(talk) 03:35, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Wow, holy crap, awesome work on the article man. It even has references! -- Ned Scott 03:32, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

• I agree with that. Excellent work! Wikibofh_(talk) 03:35, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Thirded! -- Miwa * talk * contribs ^_^ 04:41, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
    • I've fixed a few minor things with the article, but overall, it is very good. You should consider sending it to WP:GA. Titoxd^(?!?) 06:35, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
      • Thanks for the copyedits, and I have sent the article to WP:GAN. --Aguerriero (talk) 03:41, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Good Article delisting

This article has been delisted this from GA status for failing to meet the following criteria:

Manual of Style problems

Lead is only one paragraph. Now two, expanded slightly.

Most sections are two paragraphs or shorter and should be expanded. See below.

Most paragraphs are three sentences or shorter and should be expanded. I randomly clicked one article from every section of the GA list, and out of 28 articles, 17 of them were very similar in general paragraph length to this one.

Inappropriate linking, including irrelevant (e.g. miles, km) and red links. Red links, maybe, but one link to miles/kilometers is general practice.

Areas and attractions section is a list.

NPOV

In the first paragraph of Controversies, saying the director "meant to" do something good but the employees "saw" it as something bad is very biased language for the director. Fixed with less POV-terms, open to personal interpretation after reading the source for background info.

--jwanders^Talk 07:31, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

As you noted to me, don't take this as a personal attack, but I think you were being a bit harsh on this article. Killfest2—Daniel.Bryant 09:42, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, on re-reading and as you've addressed the concerns I raised, I'm happy to relist this. Technically, I guess it's supposed to go through nomination again and everything, but this is probably a good time to be bold and deal with any complaints afterwards ;-) --jwanders^Talk 10:10, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks!

Thanks for the edits, folks, much appreciated! As to the item about redlinking, I think an inappropriate redlink is one that is unlikely to ever be resolved. I feel that my two may eventually warrant articles - that is the only reason I add redlinks when writing an article. Also on the point about the Controversies - I was simply paraphrasing what the source article said. Since it wouldn't be appropriate for me to conclude what the director meant to do or what the employees perceived, I just echoed the sentiment in the news article. I assume the journalist based those statements on interviews and other research. Thanks again! --Aguerriero (talk) 14:32, 7 August 2006 (UTC)