Talk:Nashville Zoo at Grassmere

message: This article only has one citation, and not nearly enough content, for B-class. There are plenty of pictures available, but they are mostly in a gallery and are mostly animal closeups (not photos of the zoo). The Infobox does not contain all the info that is available and should have at least logo. Note that grammar and structure are currently checked "yes", but both of these can easily deteriorate when content is added. Donlammers (talk) 11:52, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Assessments😍😍😍😍😍

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Nashville Zoo at Grassmere. 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:
*Added archive https://archive.is/20130129190906/http://www.nashvillescene.com/2001-11-01/news/nashville-rsquo-s-ark to http://www.nashvillescene.com/2001-11-01/news/nashville-rsquo-s-ark
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:36, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified (February 2018) 

message: Linked photos that could be used on the page as you see fit. None of these photos are owned by Nashville Zoo.
Margaret and Elise Croft: http://cdm15138.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/singleitem/collection/p15138coll31/id/495/rec/52, http://cdm15138.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/singleitem/collection/p15138coll31/id/468/rec/39
Entry Village: http://technifex.com/portfolio/fire-cauldrons-nashville-zoo/
Flamingo Lagoon: http://behindtheglassmagazine.com/?p=447
Kangaroo Kickabout: http://www.nashvilleparent.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/Nashville-Zoo-Kangaroo-Kickabout.jpg
Jungle Gym: http://terrastune.blogspot.com/2012/06/face-down-in-four-year-old-foot-funk.html
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Cfifer (talk • contribs) 18:10, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Regards,  spintendo  22:57, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed Changes 

message: Your edit request could not be reviewed because the provided references are not formatted correctly. The system predominantly in use with the article is Citation Style 1. The citation system used in the edit request consists of bare URL's. Any requested edit of yours which may be implemented will need to resemble the current system already in use – in this case, CS1 (See WP:CITEVAR). This would not normally be a problem in a request of a smaller size, whereas larger requests can be expected to have this formatting done before the request is submitted for review. 
The sun is pretty big.
 https://www.abcnews.com
The moon is not so big. 
http://www.newssource.com
The sun is also quite hot. 
http://www.somewebsite.com
The sun is pretty big.[1] The moon is not so big.[2] The sun is also quite hot.[3] 
References
----
1. 
2. 
3. 
In the example above there are three URL's provided with the claim statements, but these URL's have not been placed using the citation system predominantly used by the Nashville Zoo article, which currently is the Citation Style 1 system. Using this system, the WikiFormatted text of the citations would resemble the items shown below:
The sun is pretty big, but the moon is not so big. The sun is also quite hot.
The sun is pretty big,[1] but the moon is not so big.[2] The sun is also quite hot.[3]
References
----
^ Sjöblad, Tristan. . Academic Press, 2018, p. 1.
^ Duvalier, Gabrielle. , Scientific American, 51(78):46.
^ Uemura, Shū. . Academic Press, 2018, p. 2.
In the example above the links have been formatted to show author, source name, date, etc., all information which is lost when only the links are provided. As I indicated above, since Wikipedia is a volunteer project, larger edit requests such yours are generally expected to have this formatting done before the request is submitted for review. 
Kindly rewrite your edit request so that it aligns more with the second example above, and feel free to re-submit that edit request at your earliest convenience. 
If you have any questions about this formatting please don't hesitate to ask myself or another editor. Regards,  spintendo  00:50, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: Reply 27-AUG-2018

message: # Thank you for formatting the references properly. 
# Please take care not to remove other editor's comments as you did with your last post.
# The lead section ought not contain any references. The information in this section is to be referenced when it is mentioned later in the body of text.
# The first paragraph of the history section contains text which is unreferenced. Please be sure to place reference notes immediately after the information which they verify is shown.
# Information on the Zoo should be referenced by sources which are unconnected to the subject. The Tennessean, as a local area, statewide paper, accepts advertising from the Zoo and reports often on the Zoo as a local business of interest. It is natural for local papers to report on items of local interest in the view that such reporting is good for business. The closeness of the subject - in this case, a Zoo located within their state -- raises questions of objectivity. Seeing as how the main source being used for these edit requests involve reporting from the Tennessean, I think it would be prudent and cautious to ask for secondary sources. (This would be the case with other references closely aligned to the subject zoo, such as aza.org). I have placed some search suggestions at the top of this talk page to assist in finding secondary sources. 
# Information on the History of the Zoo is Ok coming from sources like the Tennessean, who are the best positioned to know about past Zoo developments. Information on the past can be safer, because it is oftentimes devoid of any immediate potential to induce a COI (i.e., you can't sell tickets to see what year the Zoo was incorporated in, or sell tickets to meetings where it was decided what the Zoo's location would be. All of these items the Tennessean would have access to but no obvious reason to promote).
# The information on current exhibits comes close to resembling a travel guide, which is not the purpose of Wikipedia. Having the information come from a source other than a state paper which often carries advertising for the Nashville Zoo would help to alleviate concerns of promotion.
I'd like to hear what other editors think about these points I've mentioned. Please weigh in.   spintendo  20:57, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: Reply 30-AUG-2018

message: #  Portions of the proposed text concerning past zoo developments (shown under the History section) were implemented. Within this text were claims which, as written, were unclear as to what was being communicated. These areas are indicated in the final text of the article by clarification inline tags which prompt other editors to fill in missing context. That missing context may also be added here on the talk page as a COI edit request.
#  Information on current exhibits was not added for the reasons stated in my previous post dated 30-AUG-2018 (point numbers #5 and #7).
#  Information on conservation efforts was added in instances where the claims were directly attributable to sources unconnected to the Zoo (e.g., ABC News, etc). 
#  The image used to identify the zoo on the zoo's main website (a.k.a. the Zoo's "logo") has been added to the infobox in order to better identify it to readers of the article.
:Regards,  spintendo  22:57, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: Reply 01-SEP-2018

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the . —Community Tech bot (talk) 09:22, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion 

message: In my previous post I mentioned that the Zoo, having only opened in the past 20 years, likely did not have a checkered past. As you may well know, this was perhaps true for the zoo but not so for the zoo's property, collectively known as "Grassmere". This site evidently does have a checkered past, and I believe that the information concerning this past should be included in the article's history section. Information about the property's 19th-century owners, the Dunns (which was explicitly left out of the COI editor's request proposal) should definitely be added to the history section. From what I can see, this information has been widely reported and is well referenced. In the end I believe these items should be included. I am writing up a portion of text now with references which I would like to add to the article, and I would like your input if possible. Please advise on any ideas you may have about this. Since this article chiefly concerns the Zoo, there is no need for the information to go beyond the History section.   spintendo  09:58, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: Additional information about the Grassmere site