Talk:Phoenix Zoo

Phoenix 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.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
August 7, 2006	Good article nominee	Listed
January 31, 2010	Good article reassessment	Kept

Current status: Good article

United States: Arizona Mid‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	Arizona portal This article is supported by WikiProject Arizona (assessed as Top-importance).

Zoo

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Zoo, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics related to zoos, aquaria, and aviaries on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ZooWikipedia:WikiProject ZooTemplate:WikiProject ZooZoo articles

Initial comments

It has been mentioned in other articles that this was built on the site of a WWII Japanese internment camp and/or a German POW camp ... which of these is true and is this articleworthy? Thanks! -- Miwa * talk * contribs ^_^ 02:42, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have not read either of those things in any of the research I have done on the Phoenix Zoo. --Aguerriero (talk) 03:13, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- The POW camp was at Papago park, which is right near the zoo. [1]. The Japanese internment was on an Indian reservation. [2]. That roughly jives with my memory. Wikibofh_(talk) 03:35, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, holy crap, awesome work on the article man. It even has references! -- Ned Scott 03:32, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with that. Excellent work! Wikibofh_(talk) 03:35, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Thirded! -- Miwa * talk * contribs ^_^ 04:41, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - I've fixed a few minor things with the article, but overall, it is very good. You should consider sending it to WP:GA. Titoxd^(?!?) 06:35, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - Thanks for the copyedits, and I have sent the article to WP:GAN. --Aguerriero (talk) 03:41, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good Article delisting

This article has been delisted this from GA status for failing to meet the following criteria:

Manual of Style problems: ~~Lead is only one paragraph.~~ Now two, expanded slightly.; ~~Most sections are two paragraphs or shorter and should be expanded.~~ See below.; ~~Most paragraphs are three sentences or shorter and should be expanded.~~ I randomly clicked one article from every section of the GA list, and out of 28 articles, 17 of them were very similar in general paragraph length to this one.; ~~Inappropriate linking, including irrelevant (e.g. miles, km) and red links.~~ Red links, maybe, but one link to miles/kilometers is general practice.; Areas and attractions section is a list.
NPOV: ~~In the first paragraph of Controversies, saying the director "meant to" do something good but the employees "saw" it as something bad is very biased language for the director.~~ Fixed with less POV-terms, open to personal interpretation after reading the source for background info.

--jwanders^Talk 07:31, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As you noted to me, don't take this as a personal attack, but I think you were being a bit harsh on this article. Killfest2—Daniel.Bryant 09:42, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, on re-reading and as you've addressed the concerns I raised, I'm happy to relist this. Technically, I guess it's supposed to go through nomination again and everything, but this is probably a good time to be bold and deal with any complaints afterwards ;-) --jwanders^Talk 10:10, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks!

Thanks for the edits, folks, much appreciated! As to the item about redlinking, I think an inappropriate redlink is one that is unlikely to ever be resolved. I feel that my two may eventually warrant articles - that is the only reason I add redlinks when writing an article. Also on the point about the Controversies - I was simply paraphrasing what the source article said. Since it wouldn't be appropriate for me to conclude what the director meant to do or what the employees perceived, I just echoed the sentiment in the news article. I assume the journalist based those statements on interviews and other research. Thanks again! --Aguerriero (talk) 14:32, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned references in Phoenix Zoo

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Phoenix Zoo's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "yalooni/transfer":

From Arabian oryx: The Yalooni Transfer
From Arabian oryx reintroduction: "The Yalooni Transfer". Retrieved 2009-09-25.

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT ⚡ 11:12, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done I have taken the best of the three citations (the URL was the same for all three, but the citations were not the same) and made them all the same. Don Lammers (talk) 18:14, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Phoenix Zoo. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:19, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]