Talk:History of Edinburgh Zoo

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the History of Edinburgh Zoo article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

History of Edinburgh Zoo has been listed as one of the History good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
December 26, 2012	Good article nominee	Listed

Edinburgh Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Edinburgh, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Edinburgh on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EdinburghWikipedia:WikiProject EdinburghTemplate:WikiProject EdinburghEdinburgh articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Zoo

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Zoo, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics related to zoos, aquaria, and aviaries on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ZooWikipedia:WikiProject ZooTemplate:WikiProject ZooZoo articles

History Mid‑importance

	History portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the subject of History on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.HistoryWikipedia:WikiProject HistoryTemplate:WikiProject Historyhistory articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Image copyright problem with Image:Edinburgh Zoo logo.png[edit]

The image Image:Edinburgh Zoo logo.png is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --09:33, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Change of article focus[edit]

Until recently this article just had a very long list of events in the zoo's history. While I was rewriting the list as prose I realised that a lot of the later "history" is just an incomplete and not particularly notable set of news stories. A lot of these don't add much, in my opinion. I'd like to remove a lot of the information, keeping only details which have some broader relevance to the zoo's history. For example, if a citation can be found showing that the 90's really were a bad year for disease then it might be useful to keep some of those examples, but the lists of animals from the next decade seem a bit random. I'd like to expand the sections on events like the war, foot-and-mouth disease, the Highland Wildlife Park, Voytek etc and dramatically shrink or remove a lot of the later information. What are people's views on this? If nobody responds here I'll just go ahead and do it. --Noiratsi (talk) 09:19, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support - Go for it! It looks much better already, but animals are born and die at zoos all the time, and I agree that most of that is not notable. I also agree with your proposed expansions, which are about the things that actually mattered historically and are currently kind of overshadowed by what amounts to "birth announcements". Don Lammers (talk) 16:32, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:History of Edinburgh Zoo/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Khazar2 (talk · contribs) 17:12, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'll be glad to take this one. I'll do a careful readthrough of the article in the next 3-4 days, followed by a formal checklist of the criteria. Looking forward to working with you. -- Khazar2 (talk) 17:12, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to be slower than planned in starting on this. I'll do my readthrough now. -- Khazar2 (talk) 15:55, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lead[edit]

The lead section should better summarize the article per WP:LEAD. Please make sure all of the article's subsections are covered here. -- Khazar2 (talk) 15:55, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for adding this. I removed one sentence that seemed to me unneeded and perhaps slightly editorializing, but otherwise it looks great. -- Khazar2 (talk) 14:53, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

First readthrough[edit]

"To this day" -- this statement could become dated. Consider "as of December 2012, the zoo was..." or whatever the most up-to-date source is. -- Khazar2 (talk) 16:11, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"a wealthy Scottish publisher and bookseller" and " Scottish accountant William Keith" probably don't need the Scottish--I think the reader will assume these individuals living in Scotland are Scottish unless told otherwise. I could be wrong, though; this one's only a suggestion. -- Khazar2 (talk) 16:14, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This looks like solid work overall, and appears comprehensive. I'll begin the checklist now.

Checklist[edit]

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	Prose is excellent, and spot checks reveal no copyright issues.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	Yes.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).
	2c. it contains no original research.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	A terrific range of images.
	7. Overall assessment.	Article passes--excellent work.

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on History of Edinburgh Zoo. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110605075421/http://news.scotsman.com/ViewArticle.aspx?articleid=3544794 to http://news.scotsman.com/ViewArticle.aspx?articleid=3544794

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 12:28, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified (January 2018)[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on History of Edinburgh Zoo. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:33, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]