Talk:Pittsburgh Zoo & Aquarium

message: The article has a couple of unreferenced POV statements - "which was one of the best of its kind", "The new exhibits are state of the art and probably one of the best of its kind.". These should be rewritten and referenced appropriately. Tanthalas39 (talk) 16:29, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I nuked a lot of the advertising in the article. Wm.C (talk) 11:09, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Neutrality Discussion 

message: Hello. I am one of the major contributing editors for an article on the Good Zoo at Oglebay Park in Wheeling, WV. I would like to know when you usually add information about new exhibits to your article. The Good Zoo is scheduled to open a new exhibit very soon, but as far as I know they haven't announced the date or specifics to the general public. In the interest of preventing a conflict between myself and official representatives of the Good Zoo, I am asking your opinion on this matter. Do you generally wait until after the members/VIP opening night or until after the exhibit is opened to the general public? I have never been publicly approached by representatives of the zoo in regards to my contributions to the article, but "representatives" have said in the past (through the article's talk page), "Many people on staff have read this article and applauded his work." My concerns are based on this comment,"...please make sure to be careful on here. We certainly don't want any of our volunteers getting into a bad situation," which was made on Wikipedia before the first comment I mentioned. I have a firm belief that, while they know I volunteer at the zoo, they do not know exactly who I am. I wish to remain anonymous in this endeavor, so I would like to keep all conflicts to a minimum. That is why I am requesting your assistance. Thanks for all your help! (I ask that you leave any suggestions on my talk page) Morganismysheltie (talk) 23:34, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It's highly unusual that a new exhibit doesn't get a lot of publicity. Usually information about the exhibit (including possible opening dates if available) can go in a "The future" section. Once it is actually open, this information needs to be moved into the "Exhibits" section with an expanded description, and probably also be mentioned under "History." Donlammers (talk) 12:51, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: When do you add info on new exhibits?

message: This is not anywhere near well enough cited for a B-class article. In addition, what looks like a really long article is mostly a big long list of animals, which should be arranged by exhibit with some narrative about the exhibit (I still fail to see why these lists are so popular, as they are ever-changing and not in themselves notable). The article contains a single lonely photo which does not show much about the zoo. Donlammers (talk) 12:51, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Looking at this again, IMHO, it's not even cited well enough for a C-class article. Because it has enough text, rather than demoting I am adding the attention flag, as it needs work and I don't have the time right now. Donlammers (talk) 12:29, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Assessment

message: I added a bunch of citations, cleared away all of the biased information, and removed the animal lists.  I also added descriptions of the zoo sections, rewrote the history section, and added a section about an expansion project that the zoo currently has in mind.  I also deleted the wikilink redirects.
The article's quality should be significantly better than it was.  The article still needs some work in some places, like photos to give the reader an idea of what the zoo looks like, and I think some places could also be expanded a little.  Feedback?  Voz7 (talk) 23:51, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: MUCH better. Voz7, please sign your posts. All you need to do is put four tildes ~~~~ after your posts. This is now a very solid C-class article on its way to B. As Voz7 points out, it still needs some photos OF THE ZOO (and aquarium). All of the photos in Commons seem to be OF ANIMALS with no surrounding. Particularly, there should be an entrance photo of the zoo for the infobox. I will work on the citations over the next week or so to expand them and consolidate duplicates. I think then we can evaluate what it will take to get to B. I think it's pretty close. Donlammers (talk) 13:32, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Major Fixer-Upper 

message: Thanks for all your help, Donlammers.  I'm really excited for this article.  I've been thinking of adding a "Conservation and Research" section to the article, which describes the zoo's current research and conservation projects.  The zoo website keeps mentioning conservation as one of their top priorities, but conservation is curiously not mentioned in this article.  I might be able to start working on that section within the next week or so.
Voz7 (talk) 20:44, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Conservation and Research 

message: I've added a note under history about this death. Perhaps someone could make sure the citation is worded properly?
Thanks Hansye42 (talk) 14:52, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Missed that fixing some unnecessary editing, but I replaced it in my current edit.  I also kept the Incident section since this event seems worthy of mention in its own section.  I will check your citation when I get some time later this evening. 130.203.222.125 (talk) 19:14, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: And we don't want to either overstate nor understate, but just be as down the middle as we can.  This is a major tragedy for the zoo, and obviously for the family.  FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 21:51, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: The question, overall, is: for any zoo where a visitor is killed by an animal on exhibit, should the article on that zoo mention that tragic incident? DS (talk) 04:50, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I think we should clearly include it.  We should include the facts that are reported by good sources and not reach beyond them. FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 18:55, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: For the most part though, in zoo articles we have been placing such incidents in a separate section titled "Incidents", not in the History section. Don Lammers (talk) 11:58, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that would be an improvement, although we might be able to do better still.  "Incidents" still sounds too much like bland, 'neutral' corporate speak to me (although better than "History"!).  FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 02:10, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you said it perfectly. Please read WP:NEUTRAL. This is an encyclopedia and is it supposed to be neutral. Don Lammers (talk) 13:51, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

text: And per the above LA Times article, it may have been common practice for parents to place their children on this edge.  FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 19:17, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Common practice does not mean sensible, and most zoos that I have been to have warning signs saying not to sit or stand on the railings (I have never been to the L.A. zoo, so I can't say specifically if it has any such warnings). Don Lammers (talk) 11:58, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: The LA Times article was talking about the Pittsburgh Zoo.  And I quite agree, common practice does not mean sensible.  And I heard a casual engineering rule-of-thumb, that if a warning sign is necessary, there's some fundamental flaw with the design!  Now, this may not be strictly true, but it does provide an interesting line of thought.  FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 02:34, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Boy killed by dogs 

message: Pittsburgh Zoo says 2-year-old was killed by dogs, not fall, LA Times, Matt Pearce, November 5, 2012.
caption to news video: 'The medical examiner has concluded that childr who fell into an African painted dog exhibit was killed by the animals.'
Article:  'The 2-year-old Pennsylvania boy who died at the Pittsburgh Zoo over the weekend bounced two times on a protective netting after falling off a railing and into an African painted dog exhibit, where the dogs then attacked and killed him, the zoo's chief executive said Monday.  .  .  '
'  .  .  .  Witnesses told police that the boy's unidentified 34-year-old mother, from Pleasant Hills, Pa., had sat him on the 4-foot railing along an elevated viewing area. Then he fell.
'“From witnesses’ accounts, the child was so small that he bounced, he bounced twice, and then he bounced into the exhibit," Baker said, after taking a long pause. "So the safety net did catch him, it just didn’t hold him.”  .  .  '
'  .  .  .  The zoo passed recent inspections and "discouraged" visitors from putting children on such railings, Baker said, although she did not elaborate on whether there were specific policies or regulations in place.  .  .  '
::And we don't want to either overstate nor understate, but just be as down the middle as we can.  This is a major tragedy for the zoo, and obviously for the family.  FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 21:51, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: The question, overall, is: for any zoo where a visitor is killed by an animal on exhibit, should the article on that zoo mention that tragic incident? DS (talk) 04:50, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I think we should clearly include it.  We should include the facts that are reported by good sources and not reach beyond them. FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 18:55, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: For the most part though, in zoo articles we have been placing such incidents in a separate section titled "Incidents", not in the History section. Don Lammers (talk) 11:58, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that would be an improvement, although we might be able to do better still.  "Incidents" still sounds too much like bland, 'neutral' corporate speak to me (although better than "History"!).  FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 02:10, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you said it perfectly. Please read WP:NEUTRAL. This is an encyclopedia and is it supposed to be neutral. Don Lammers (talk) 13:51, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: zoo CEO says boy killed by dogs, not fall 

message: Zoo officials: Toddler's death in Pittsburgh shows no zoo is 100 percent safe, NBC News, Andrew Mach, Nov. 7, 2012.
“  .  .  .  The boy’s mother had put him on a wooden railing at the edge of a viewing deck to see the animals, officials said, and the boy fell into the exhibit. He initially landed on the netting below the deck but bounced several times before dropping about 11 feet into the dog’s enclosure.  .  .  ”  
::And per the above LA Times article, it may have been common practice for parents to place their children on this edge.  FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 19:17, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Common practice does not mean sensible, and most zoos that I have been to have warning signs saying not to sit or stand on the railings (I have never been to the L.A. zoo, so I can't say specifically if it has any such warnings). Don Lammers (talk) 11:58, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: The LA Times article was talking about the Pittsburgh Zoo.  And I quite agree, common practice does not mean sensible.  And I heard a casual engineering rule-of-thumb, that if a warning sign is necessary, there's some fundamental flaw with the design!  Now, this may not be strictly true, but it does provide an interesting line of thought.  FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 02:34, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Common practice to put kids on railing?