Talk:Prospect Park Zoo

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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.
Good article GA This article has been rated as GA-Class on the quality scale.
Flag of New York City
NYC Portal

This article is part of WikiProject New York City, an effort to create, expand, and improve New York City-related articles to Wikipedia feature-quality standard.

Bulletin: The next New York City meetup is Sunday June 1st.
Good article GA This article has been rated as GA-Class on the quality scale.
Mid This article has been rated as mid-importance on the importance scale.
Good article Prospect Park Zoo has been listed as one of the Everyday life good articles 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 reassessment.

Contents

[edit] Archives

/2006

[edit] Update and Review

This Article Needs A Slight Update On The Animal Statistics,CheetahKeeper 04:54, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Done. New data are from the 2006 Wildlife Conservation Society Annual Report. Take care — Gosgood 20:23, 15 April 2007 (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/archive1 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: User:Gosgood/Sandbox|investigation discussion... Gosgood 11:37, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

  • Addressed hasn't been an issue since March 02, 2007. Dimension readjustment seemed to work — Gosgood 19:34, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] GA review

The article is good but there are a few layout and referencing problems:

Thank you. In agreement with all points of your analysis. I have indexed details of my particular responses to your points to the cumulative diff between article version 137792146, dated 00:22, 13 June 2007 (my revisions) and article version 136876019 dated 18:04, 8 June 2007 (basis of your review). — Gosgood 17:09, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
  1. According to Wikipedia:Manual of Style, it is not recommended to specify the size of images, as the size should be what readers have specified in their user preferences.
    1. Explicit "px" parameters have been removed from all images. (lines 5, 80, 109, 217, 296)
  2. The panda and porcupine images need to be moved so that text isn't sandwiched in between them.
    1. All images now align to the right (lines 80, 109, 296)
  3. "near Leffert's Homestead and the Carousel." "Map of Prospect Park Zoo (Portable Document Format - PDF)" - external links should only be in the External Links section.
    1. links moved from various locations to the External Link section. (lines 80, 384)
  4. The method of emphasising the names of the zoos attractions, such as the Discovery Center, World of Animals or Animals in our Lives, is inconsistent throughout the article; boldface, italics, apostrophes, speach marks and combinations of those, are all used in the article. I'm not sure that they need emphasising at all.
    1. Changed to regular weighted, unquoted, vertical style letterforms throughout body text. Used bold weighted vertical style letterforms in section lead sentences (lines 80, 109, 131)
  5. "the zoo housed nearly four hundred animals representing one hundred six species" - it is standard practice to write numbers, greater than ten, in figures not words.
    1. Changed to arabic figures (line 68)
  6. ""Docents" augment the educational program" - 'Docents' shouldn't have a capital D
    1. Changed to lower case (line 131)
  7. "The Fleece Festival was a Spring event" - 'Spring' shouldn't have a capital S
    1. Changed to lower case (line 131)
  8. "the last decade of the nineteenth century" - it should be written 19th century
    1. Changed to numeric expression (line 157)
  9. It isn't necessary for the footnotes to state that documents are in English.
    1. citation template key parameter 'language', with value 'english' removed throughout. (lines 14, 24, 48, 62, 131, 157, 173, 184, 194, 205, 217, 239, 271, 284, 313, 335, 352)
  10. These words could be wikilinked: tamarins, docents, cinnamon bears
    1. Cotton Top Tamarins already linked (line 80). Avoiding overlinking per point 4, over- under-linking guidance "A link for any single term is excessively repeated in the same article..." The prior referernce in the previous paragraph was already linked (line 80)
    2. Docents: linked to [[wikt:docents]] (line 131)
    3. cinnamon bears linked to [[cinnamon bear]]s (line 153)
  11. This sentence doesn't sound very encyclopaedic - "Ample seating allows visitors and baboons to observe each other for hours on end."
    1. Changed to " Ample seating allows visitors to observe the troop." (line 109)
  12. The whole of the Facilities section needs inline citations, not just the first sentence.
    1. Added reference for number of buildings and general arrangement (reference: "Opening") "Smith decries back-alley politics of LaGuardia" New York Times, July 4, 1935
    2. Added reference for rebuilt interiors of buildings with preserved exteriors (reference: "PPGuide") The Complete Illustrated Guidebook to Prospect Park and the Brooklyn Botanic Garden Berenson, Richard J.; deMause, Neil (2001).
    3. Added reference for the current, post-reconstruction, physical arrangement of buildings and their names (reference: "ZooMapBrochure" ) Wildlife Conservation Society. Map: Prospect Park Zoo [map], 5th edition.
  13. These need inline citations:
    1. "The Discovery Trail has been carefully designed so that very little of the trail can be seen at one time"
      1. Removed. Reason: Not supported in references (line 80) Remark: this is manifestly obvious to visitors, but to document such here constitutes original research.
    2. "Visitors may find along the trail prairie dogs, Porcupines, Parma Wallabies, Red Pandas, Emus"
      1. Added supporting reference to current "Map: Prospect Park Zoo" Reference name: "ZooMapBrochure" which indicates the exhibited animals along the Discovery Trail (line 80)
    3. "The centerpiece of the Animal Lifestyles consists of a troop of Hamadryas Baboons." - the word "centerpiece" may be POV
      1. Language changed. Now reads "The main Animal Lifestyles exhibit consists of ..." (line 109)
    4. "they learn about and use professional laboratory equipment and learn how to integrate what they observe into zoological theory"
      1. Added reference to current program description "City Zoos Education" Reference name "ppzeducation" (line 127)
    5. "Docents enroll in a 12 week training program."
      1. Now a four month training program. Added reference "City Zoos volunteers" reference name "docenttrain" (line 131)
    6. "The Prospect Park Zoo closed to the public in the summer of 1988. Over the next six months, new homes were found for the displaced animals in other zoos throughout the US. Demolition was managed by the Parks Department and began in June 1989, commencing what became a five year, $37 million effort, overrunning initial estimates by two and a half years and $19 million dollars. The exteriors of the Aymar Embury buildings were preserved, but badly deteriorated interiors were gutted, pits and cages were demolished, and new structures were built. The facilities were turned over to the NY Zoological Society in April 1993."
      1. Added reference: Closure in June 1988, displacement of animals, and groundbreaking for new facility in June 1989 from Alan Finder's New York Times article "Rebuilding a Brooklyn Zoo, Step by Agonizing Step" (April 8, 1993) (Reference: "Reconstruction")
      2. Added reference: Original cost and time estimate from James S. Newton New York Times article "New Focus Is Planned For Prospect Park Zoo" (April 5, 1987) cost and time overrun cited in Wikipedia article is surmised from simple subtraction of estimated and actual costs and time to completion data that the reader can do herself, since estimated and actual costs are also carried forward from references and cited in the article.
      3. Added references: April 1993 opening, time for construction from Alan Finder and Wildlife Conservation Society's history of the zoo: About the City Zoos. Wildlife Conservation Society. (reference: WCSPPZHistory)

The review has been placed on hold for a maximum of seven days. Let me know when these are fixed or if you disagree with any. Thanks. Epbr123 23:35, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

I await your revisit. Thank you for your time. Take care — Gosgood 17:09, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Pass! Good work.

I hope you don't mind but I've moved one of the images to remove the gaps between some of the headings and the text. You might not have seen any gaps if you're using something other than Internet Explorer. Epbr123 20:14, 13 June 2007 (UTC)