# Talk:Edinburgh Zoo

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)

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)
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)


### 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

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)

About the future developments section of the article; I've created a seperate article of it which could use a little more info. Ross Rhodes (T C) Sign! 20:13, 7 April 2009 (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)

Well done on the recent work, it has improved the article. A couple of comments/suggestions from me.
Firstly, the article should have some consistency of capitalisation. I am aware of the Wikipedia debate over capitalisation of species names, and I can also see what you have tried to do in the article, by capitalising species and leaving more generic names like "lion" lower case. But it leads to a mixture of lower and upper case, often as part of the same list, and this makes for awkward reading. My preference is for lower case for species and generic names, and this would bring the article into line with other UK zoo articles.
Secondly, the future developments section needs updating - probably with a statement that the Masterplan is currently under review following the city council's decision not to allow the zoo to sell part of their estate for housing. The latest cost estimate is over £70 million, not £58 million - this could be properly sourced. Cparsons79 (talk) 12:26, 27 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:

using scientific names throughout - often appropriate for articles of a specialist nature.
using title case for common names of species throughout (per WP:BIRDS) and lower case for non-specific names such as eagle or bilberry, which may work well for articles with a broad coverage of natural history.
using lower case for common names, which may work well for non-specialist articles that happen to refer to various different taxonomic groups."
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 MacDui 16:48, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

There are examples of GAs and FAs which use all the different styles, and some which use more than one! My points really were that as it stands, the article is inconsistent with regards to capitalisation and reads awkwardly due to switching between upper and lower case in lists of animals. Since generic names can never be capitalised, my personal preference would be for lower case throughout, which is an acceptable according to MOS, would improve readability and would not hamper the ambitions to achieve GA status. But I'm not here to impose my will or open a can of worms - or should that be Worms? ;) Cparsons79 (talk) 20:20, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
Well, it would be "can of worms" but "can of Common European Earthworms! I agree entirely. Either everything should be lowercase, or Polar Bear, Koala, Jaguar, King Penguin, Sea Otter, Capybara & European Beaver should be title case. Not sure about "Canna mouse", but probably. Python should be lower case. Also, "crane" needs to be a plural for consistency. Ben MacDui 07:49, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Edinburgh Zoo/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

This article is in decent shape, but it needs more work before it becomes a Good Article.
Is it well written?
A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct: 
In the Future developments section, maybe a semicolon is missing in the Grasslands mention, since "rhinos" has a lowercase r and a period is front of "rhinos".
Check. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 20:55, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation: 
In the Military animals section, it would be best if "15th of August 2008" was "15 August 2008", per here. Same thing goes with the date in the Research and conservation section. The article tends to have "red links", if they don't have articles, it would be best to un-link them, per here.
Check. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 20:55, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
Is it verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check?
A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline: 
Reference 17 is missing Publisher info.
Check. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 20:55, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
B. 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): 
Is there a source for this ---> "Gillespie's vision of what a Zoological Park should be was modeled after the 'open design' of Tierpark Hagenbeck in Hamburg, a zoo which promoted a more spacious and natural environment for the animals, and stood in stark contrast to the steel cages typical of the menageries built during the Victorian era"? Is there a source for this ---> "In 1986, the Society acquired the Highland Wildlife Park at Kingussie, 30 miles (48 km) south of Inverness. The Zoo and the Park work together in providing animals with the best possible captive habitat available in Scotland. Public visitation trips between both sites are organised frequently by the RZSS"?
Check. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 20:55, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
C. It contains no original research: 

D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism: 

Is it broad in its coverage?
A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic: 

B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style): 

Is it neutral?
It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each: 

Is it stable?
It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute: 

Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content: 

B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions: 

Overall:
Pass or Fail: 
If the statements above can be answered, I will pass the article. Good luck with improving this 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)

Thank you to Brideshead for getting the stuff I left at the talk page, because I have gone off and placed the article as GA. Congrats. ;) --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 20:55, 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)

I agree with the above. In addition the sheer huge number of problems the zoo has had this year are not mentioned at all.Nirame (talk) 10:33, 8 June 2011 (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) 

After no response, I have removed this section. It is not really encyclopaedic content! Gloucestershiredad (talk) 17:06, 14 October 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:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/20081013223130/http://www.edinburghzoo.org.uk:80/about/gardens/ to http://www.edinburghzoo.org.uk/about/gardens/
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).

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 IITalk 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)

It may still be the second-most popular paid-for attraction after Edinburgh Castle, according to the ALVA website that the Infobox linked to. I am not entirely sure how to interpret these figures, though. ALVA only shows figures for the associated members, so does that give a reliable total score? For now I have chosen to update the visitor numbers in the Infobox based on the 2022 figures from ALVA, and to re-phrase the popularity to a more general "which makes it one of Scotland's most popular paid-for tourist attractions".--MichielN (talk) 22:12, 4 May 2023 (UTC)