Talk:Prospect Park Zoo
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
Prospect Park Zoo has had a peer review by Wikipedia editors which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article. |
 |
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. |
| B | This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale. |
Contents |
[edit] Copy Violation Found
As of January 17, 2006, the text of the second and third paragraphs of this article is a word-for-word copy of text here: [1], so there is a copy violation afoot; one can't be absolutely sure of who is copying from whom, but given the recent date of the Wikipedia version, I sadly suspect it is us copying from them. Best to recast and augment.
[edit] Summary of Changes
- The early history is based on various articles from the Brooklyn Daily Eagle, and (a little) archival material at the Prospect Park Alliance Park Archives web site.
- Berenson and deMause furnish detail that I used in "The Zoo Today," along with recast material from [2]
Gosgood 01:45, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Just a petting zoo?
The introduction makes it sound like the zoo is strictly a petting zoo, but later down it mentions that it contains "Red Pandas, Meerkats, Emerald Tree Boas, Capybaras, Cottontop Tamarins" and so forth. I'm guessing these animals are not part of the petting zoo? 24.192.17.34 05:57, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
Good point; will try to work it in. My understanding is that is that the preferred name is now "conservation center" Gosgood 12:14, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
Addressed. The lead paragraph now refers to the facility as a 'conservation center'. Gosgood 19:54, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Current results of peer review request
I think the Good Article Review Checklist furnishes a decent framework for the peer review comments thus far. See Wikipedia:Peer review/Prospect Park Zoo for reviewer remarks. See Wikipedia:What is a good article? for discussion on what sections of this checklist means.
- It is well written
- compelling prose, and is readily comprehensible to non-specialist readers... One reviewer suggests a general copy edit for style. For example, the article ends with a folksy remark about the fauna in the zoo being very different to that as the park as the whole; this does not constitute neutral reporting on the facility.
- it follows a logical structure... The structure of the article is unbalanced and weighted toward the history of the facility. Two reviewers would like to see more on current activities in the zoo. One reviewer would like to see the info box better supported: this box furnishes an 'at-a-glance' summary of the facility which can be uniformly compared with other facilities, so long as it is filled out.
- It follows certain elements of the Wikipedia Manual of style... One reviewer cites that the headlines are not consistently capitalized (addressed by Banana04131) The citations are inconsistent (needs to be addressed).
- Jargon... There are a lot of mention of Prospect park placenames which may not even be fully understood by long-term Brooklyn residents, and must be utterly without meaning to the majority of readers. This constitutes jargon and I think a map of the Zoo grounds and nearby park would help here.
- It is factually accurate and verifiable...
- provides references to any and all sources... As one reviewer noted, The Construction of the Prospect Park Zoo needs backup by references. In particular, the claim that the "zoo received little in the way of development money and suffered chronic underfunding from the 1940’s through the 1980’s." is not supported by the references and a citation is needed. There is no support in the of the chronology of the original 1935 construction.
- possible to trace all sources of an article... Apart from unsupported sections, I think there is a fairly clear connection between assertions in the articles and support by references.
- reliable sources... Apart from the unsupported sections, I think the supporting sources are largely contemporary publications that can be found in local libraries; most are accessible through the internet.
- no original research... Apart from the folksy distinction between park and zoo fauna at the conclusion of the article, I don't believe there are any original assertions in this article
- It is broad in its coverage. In this respect:
- it addresses all major aspects of the topic... There is rather more about the history of the facility, and rather less about what is presently going on in the facility. Missing is the early 1990 debate on whether to demolish the zoo or preserve it in some fashion. Insofar as present day use of the facility, I think Wikipedia:WikiProject_Zoo#Guidelines, furnished by Ginkgo100, is a useful checklist, as are the bullet points furnished by Cburnett in his review.
- focus on the main topic without going into unnecessary details... Some of the asides in the reference citations might be construed as being off-topic. I'm rather inclined on moving them to this discussion page; They are interesting asides, but not exactly about the zoo.
- It follows the neutral point of view policy. In this respect:
- viewpoints are represented fairly... I don't believe there are any axes being ground in the current presentation; no reviewer reported an imbalance in its point of view.
- all significant points of view are fairly presented... As an already noted omission, there was controversy prior to renovation, as some residents in the neighborhood disliked zoos on principle: they imprison animals, and thought that the zoo ought to have been completely demolished. Others harbored a belief that zoos could be humanely managed. This debate encompassed Central Park and US zoos in general, and I'm not sure it bears much lengthly repeating here. I don't believe this is a matter of present debate.
- It is stable..., The edits that this peer review will engender will give rise to short term instability, I believe, but I think the articles will be substantially complete and stable by the time someone might venture to nominate it to the good article review process.
- It contains images... Two reviewers cited the need for more images. The one image available is not a great quality image: indiffernt lighting, shot through the trees, and not an entrancing angle of view.
- a lack of images does not in itself prevent an article from achieving Good Article status... I think, in the case of zoos, images are necessary; they furnish a way for people to 'visit' the facility remotely.
- correctly tagged, or fair use rationale has been provided... Since I live close by the facility, I can furnish photographic coverage, and commonly release material under GFDL, so I don't believe licensing will be an issue.
This constitutes a first draft at a todo list; I think it constitutes a pretty good checklist for article improvement; hopefully a few others may weigh in with peer review comments before the discussion is archived. Thank you to all who have participated in the review thus far, or have implemented some of the edits called for here. Gosgood 17:10, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Draft
I have a draft aimed at addressing this list here: Prospect Park Zoo.Gosgood 18:22, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
- Draft was published on January 14. Gosgood 13:20, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Draft Release
I'll be posting the draft today for wiki-wide use and commentary. I'll post the in use macro first, then migrate the draft out of my sandbox Gosgood 16:26, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Picture to the front entrance has disappeared.
You may have noticed that the picture to the front entrance has disappeared. The picture still exists in commons. Spelunking around: investigation discussion... Gosgood 11:37, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
