Edinburgh Zoo has been listed as one of the Sports and recreation 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. | |||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
Current status: Good article |
This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
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 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)
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)
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)
Can I just add to what Treehouse372 said about the adoption program. It is available to nearly all animals. The zoo also has a member program were you get in the zoo for free and get invited to special nights out. Ross Rhodes ( T C) Sign! 20:10, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
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:
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 con migo) 15:39, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
While I was editing 'Current Events' I accidently deleted the images in 'Military Animals'. Could someone please try and find them and put them back, because I can't find them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ross Rhodes ( talk • contribs) 17:28, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
I've done a bit of editing here updating the future developments section with conservation work information and also making more of teh primate research facilities and links with other public bodies all of which makes up a lot of EZ's work. -- Brideshead ( talk) 13:19, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
I'd like to see this article reach GA status. I think it's nearly ready for proposal again.-- Brideshead ( talk) 21:22, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
WP:MOS suggests: "In articles that cover two or more taxonomic groups, a consistent style of capitalisation should be used for species names. This could involve:
Each system has its pros and cons and you will note it is not proscriptive. Nonetheless, it suggests that title case is acceptable, if not preferred. I don't know much about zoo articles, but numerous successful GAs and FAs have used this system. Ben Mac Dui 16:48, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria
This article is in decent shape, but it needs more work before it becomes a Good Article.
-- ThinkBlue (Hit BLUE) 21:07, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the review and the detailed improvements, they were very helpful. I've made the changes you suggested and hopefully you can have another look at it. -- Brideshead (leave a message) 10:39, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
Hi, I'm just here to say that Future developments at Edinburgh Zoo needs some extension and improvements done to it. Please do help if you can. I've added all the info I've got for it from Wonders Never Cease, so there's no more I can do, so as I said, please do help make it better. I am considering merging the info onto this article if that's okay with you guys. Ross Rhodes ( T C) Sign! 19:36, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
I'm troubled by this article as it doesn't address the animal welfare issues associated with this zoo. I also feel that the 'opposition' section is woefully small and without any proper information.
Almost all the citations for this entry come from the Edinburgh Zoo website, which provides a very biased overview of the subject matter. The article also, in my opinion, presents topics such as the polar bear, budongo trail, touch tables and penguins in a purely positive light, giving a biased viewpoint and skirting over the many issues and concerns surrounding these topics. This does a disservice to the Wikipedia reader who is probably reading the article due to a love for and interest in animals. These readers should be made aware of the problems connected with Edinburgh zoo before handing over their money and visiting such an institution.
Ortonangel ( talk) 10:06, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
It is my view that transport links are not Encyclopaedic content as should be removed from this entry. Comments please. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gloucestershiredad ( talk • contribs) 06:16, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
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:
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: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 05:08, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
The opening paragraph lists the Edinburgh Zoo as the second-most popular attraction in Scotland, with a source from the Edinburgh Zoo website from 2007. This information appears to be extremely outdated. For one, the Zoo itself no longer makes such a claim on its site, while VisitScotland has it at number 15 on its list (backed up by this BBC article from 2018). Someone more experienced than me want to make that change? 87.142.219.95 ( talk) 18:45, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
Edinburgh Zoo has been listed as one of the Sports and recreation 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. | |||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
Current status: Good article |
This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
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 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)
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)
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)
Can I just add to what Treehouse372 said about the adoption program. It is available to nearly all animals. The zoo also has a member program were you get in the zoo for free and get invited to special nights out. Ross Rhodes ( T C) Sign! 20:10, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
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:
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 con migo) 15:39, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
While I was editing 'Current Events' I accidently deleted the images in 'Military Animals'. Could someone please try and find them and put them back, because I can't find them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ross Rhodes ( talk • contribs) 17:28, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
I've done a bit of editing here updating the future developments section with conservation work information and also making more of teh primate research facilities and links with other public bodies all of which makes up a lot of EZ's work. -- Brideshead ( talk) 13:19, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
I'd like to see this article reach GA status. I think it's nearly ready for proposal again.-- Brideshead ( talk) 21:22, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
WP:MOS suggests: "In articles that cover two or more taxonomic groups, a consistent style of capitalisation should be used for species names. This could involve:
Each system has its pros and cons and you will note it is not proscriptive. Nonetheless, it suggests that title case is acceptable, if not preferred. I don't know much about zoo articles, but numerous successful GAs and FAs have used this system. Ben Mac Dui 16:48, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria
This article is in decent shape, but it needs more work before it becomes a Good Article.
-- ThinkBlue (Hit BLUE) 21:07, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the review and the detailed improvements, they were very helpful. I've made the changes you suggested and hopefully you can have another look at it. -- Brideshead (leave a message) 10:39, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
Hi, I'm just here to say that Future developments at Edinburgh Zoo needs some extension and improvements done to it. Please do help if you can. I've added all the info I've got for it from Wonders Never Cease, so there's no more I can do, so as I said, please do help make it better. I am considering merging the info onto this article if that's okay with you guys. Ross Rhodes ( T C) Sign! 19:36, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
I'm troubled by this article as it doesn't address the animal welfare issues associated with this zoo. I also feel that the 'opposition' section is woefully small and without any proper information.
Almost all the citations for this entry come from the Edinburgh Zoo website, which provides a very biased overview of the subject matter. The article also, in my opinion, presents topics such as the polar bear, budongo trail, touch tables and penguins in a purely positive light, giving a biased viewpoint and skirting over the many issues and concerns surrounding these topics. This does a disservice to the Wikipedia reader who is probably reading the article due to a love for and interest in animals. These readers should be made aware of the problems connected with Edinburgh zoo before handing over their money and visiting such an institution.
Ortonangel ( talk) 10:06, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
It is my view that transport links are not Encyclopaedic content as should be removed from this entry. Comments please. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gloucestershiredad ( talk • contribs) 06:16, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
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:
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: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 05:08, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
The opening paragraph lists the Edinburgh Zoo as the second-most popular attraction in Scotland, with a source from the Edinburgh Zoo website from 2007. This information appears to be extremely outdated. For one, the Zoo itself no longer makes such a claim on its site, while VisitScotland has it at number 15 on its list (backed up by this BBC article from 2018). Someone more experienced than me want to make that change? 87.142.219.95 ( talk) 18:45, 7 April 2019 (UTC)