Talk:London Zoo/Archive 1

Archive 1

length of article

I think an account of the world's first ever zoo should be much longer. User:George cowie

how big?

The article says London Zoo covers 130 acres, all other sources I have found say 36

It is 36 acres (confirmed by ZSL website) - 130 acres was area of Omaha zoo (no idea why that was inserted!).Paul W 10:00, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Enclosure articles

Since both Snowdon Aviary and Gorilla Kingdom both have their own articles. Does this mean that every enclosures such as Bear Mountain/ Mappin Teraces and Meet the monkeys should also be given their own articles.

Ae12079410 19:29, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

A good guideline is whether the exhibit is notable on its own and if enough can be said about it to make an entire article. If there are news articles out there about the exhibit itself, you could probably make an article out of it. --Spike Wilbury ♫ talk 19:39, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Zsl london zoo logo.jpg

Image:Zsl london zoo logo.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 19:12, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Merger proposal

I have suggested that Snowdon Aviary and Gorilla Kingdom be merged with this article. The Snowdon Aviary page has little text on it as it is, and the Gorilla Kingdom page, although more substantial, could easily fit onto this page. I was thinking of writing a new section on the enclosures (mentioning the famous ones and the recent additions) where these articles could be moved to. It would probably be a direct copy, losing no information. Chris_huh^talk 15:45, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree this would be a better format. The London Zoo article would then follow the format of some of the other more developed British Zoo articles (Chester, Colchester, Bristol). Cparsons79 (talk) 21:26, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

I've completed the merge, I also added a load of text on the other exhibits. Chris_huh^talk 18:02, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Additions

I have recently added the sections on History, Areas and attractions, and Future developments. I still plan to expand the other exhibits (of Areas and attractions) section a little, as at the moment it is basically a list of the other species. I incorporated some of the lead into the History section (mostly in the Threat of closure bit). I am not sure whether Zoo architecture should be in the History section too?

I can't think of much else to add other than maybe a Present section to the Notable animals (so the current stuff will be Past); but all i can think of putting in there is hummingbirds.

I'm not sure of what image to use in the architecture section out of the images in the commons category, whether to keep it the same or change to one of the others there.

Also, i put in the coordinates of the separate exhibits, but am not sure about them.

I will probably be going there in a few weeks so can get some photos (particularly of the main entrance, to go in the infobox).Chris_huh^talk 16:55, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Request for comment

I am responding to a request for comment placed on the Zoo Wikiproject talk page. My comments ae written mainly with the Good article criteria in mind. I don't do 'Good Article' reviews often, but when I do I am very thorough, and sometimes approving, spending one or two days with the article. With London Zoo, It is thoroughly referenced, the lack of which being a common ground for failing an article. but the prose is indistinguished and list-like. Particulars follow.

• Lists and list-like prose. After a good start, I found the reading in Areas and attractions particularly tedious. It is list-like and monotonous. Coordinates? check. Did a royal open the section? Mention it. Also, theme, list of animals, some interesting factoids. Next. I think the map is the culprit. Once you had that in hand, you fell prey to itemizing nearly eveything on it. That work is not without value, but the map, and the list you've composed from it, I regard as a necessary bit of categorization from which you've developed familiarity with the subject at a detailed level. The next step entails rephrasing all of that list stuff in terse, summary prose that, in the end, will lead to a more comprehensible article. The old proverb I wrote you a long letter because I didn’t have time to write a short one. comes to mind. One often has to write out one's raw understanding of a topic to identify the key ideas, then trim away the words that are obscuring them -- sculpting in prose, if you will. I think a reading of embedded lists may help in that regard.

Once the article has become terse, what to do with the original list of all the regions of the zoo? Don't throw it out; it represents a good deal of work. Export it to the image page London Zoo Map. Image pages are not well utilized as repositories for very detailed prose specifically about the image on the page; they can be usefully employed as places to export detailed prose that might otherwise sandbag an article. Consider the reference to the Plaza Fountain in the Grand Army Plaza article. Looking all the world like a link to an article, the reference to the Plaza Fountain image page carries additional prose about the fountain that would have sandbagged the article at large, but still usefully supports the picture. In essense, you employ the picture as a repository for detailed information, which can be tersely summarized in the article itself.

• • Ditto for the lists you inherited when you took the article under wing early this month: Notable Animals, Archtecture at the Zoo and Filming at the Zoo Many Wikipedia editors may not feel up to writing narrative, along with finding all the references needed to support the same, but oh boy! they can stick a neat factoid that they've read in a newspaper or heard on the television, adding it to a bullet list. I imagine this gives them a warm, fuzzy feeling that they have contributed at least something to an article. So these bulleted lists grow like crab grass all over the encyclopedia. The problem with these lists is that they make the encyclopedia more like a gossip directory; these itemizations do not develop into coherent narratives about the subject matter.

• The lead distinguishes the London Zoo as a 'scientific zoo,' a summary statement which article lead style guides would have us develop in the article body. The article body does make reference to the historical scientific institution, but is largely mute on present-day research, so it is not clear to me how the zoo is 'scientific' in the here-and-now. Omissions in article bodies of items referenced in lead paragraphs give rise to incomplete coverage criticism. I, for one, would be interested in what scientific work is still being carried on in the present-day London Zoo, especially work which support its special 'scientific' designation. Note that many zoos carry on some degree of scientific research or field work, yet are not specially distinguished as 'scientific zoos.' What is currently done at the London Zoo that calls for this special designation?

Hope this helps. Gosgood (talk) 22:04, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for the feedback. I thought those lists needed to be rewritten in prose. What did you mean about the coordinates, i am not sure if they are really necessary, i just included them at first to see what the would be like. I will try and get this stuff done soon. Thanks again, Chris_huh^talk 16:22, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't think the coordinates are a bad idea, perhaps overkill, with so many coordinates in a particular area, but worth the trouble you took to get them. I was usuing the coordinates to illustrate the mechanical nature of the prose. ("Mention a royal? check. Listed the animals? check. Got the coordinates? check") I apologize that I didn't make myself clear. Take care. Gosgood (talk) 11:58, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Ah ok, i understand now. I will try and get more info for each exhibit, and try and make each one sound a little different, and naturally flowing. I was thinking that i might change it so that only the major exhibits (which have enough info one them) would be level 3 headers, then the rest can be beneath the others heading. But i will see if i can get enough info. Chris_huh^talk 15:59, 26 March 2008 (UTC) and its cool