Talk:Edinburgh Zoo
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit] Sentence removed
I removed the sentence "Public opinion often varies depending on what films are showing at the cinema, with films like Happy Feet and The Golden Compass drawing in more visitors to see the penguins or the polar bear. (Compass points to a rise in city zoo visits. The Scotsman (27 November 2007). Retrieved on 2007-12-16.") from the "Controversy and Critique" section. It doesn't seem to have anything to do with either controversy or critique of the Edinburgh zoo. I think the phenomenon of the public becoming infatuated with whatever animal has been featured in the latest movie isn't restricted to Edinburgh. Joyous! | Talk 23:47, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Good Article notes
I've cleaned up the article a bit, but I'd like to see some cite for the statement that The Zoo is the only zoo in Britain to house polar bears and koalas, as well as being the first zoo in the world to house and to breed penguins from the lead-in. Other than that, it seems well-referenced and pretty balanced. Joyous! | Talk 23:53, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
- Done! Was that all that was stopping it from gaining Good Article status? — Jack · talk · 04:07, Saturday, 12 January 2008
That's all I saw. Another reviewer might want to take a pass through it. Joyous! | Talk 16:23, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
Hey there I visited the site for the Zoo and it says that the Zoo also has an adoption program for some of the animals...i don't know if this would be relevant, but could you look it over and decide if it should be in there?? -Treehouse372 (talk) 16:59, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Further suggestions
Excuse me for butting in; I noticed that this review has been stalled for nearly two weeks and not much guidance was given regarding the article's comprehensibility. I would like to offer up some suggestions in order to improve this article about a truly important zoo:
- The lead does not follow WP:LEAD in that it mentions material that is not included in the body; it should be an overview of the entire article. For example, there is no mention in the body exactly where the zoo is located in the city or how popular it is (annual visitors, etc).
- A majority of the article is a listing of the zoo's animals and exhibits; what about expanding the assertion that it "is involved in many scientific pursuits, such as captive breeding of endangered animals, researching into animal behaviour, and active participation in various conservation programs around the world"? This is very important; what impact has the zoo made in research, captive breeding, conservation, etc? In short, what makes this zoo notable in these fields?
- The "History" section is incredibly skimpy. It even skips a period of almost forty years in history. How has the zoo changed over time? What was the "mission" of the zoo when it first opened, and how does that compare to its mission now? The History of Edinburgh Zoo article mentions trouble during WWII -- this is certainly worth mentioning. And maybe I'm biased, but what about the Penguin Parade? Isn't it somewhat famous?
In short, this article needs to be seriously expanded before I would consider it able to fulfill the third item on the Good Article Criteria; as it stands now the information is not broad enough and does not offer a suitable amount of coverage of the subject matter. I would suggest failing the article at this time in order to allow sufficient time for research and expansion. The information is out there, but it'll take some work to bring this article up to standard. It's a nice start, however! Good luck and if you have any questions, feel free to contact me on my talk page. :) María (habla conmigo) 15:39, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
- Wow, thanks for that very detailed report! :) you were clearly well-qualified to review the article.. Nevermind about GA, I'll try again in the future, once I've incorporated your suggestions. Thanks again — Jack · talk · 01:26, Tuesday, 22 January 2008