Wikipedia:Peer review/Omaha's Henry Doorly Zoo and Aquarium/archive1

Henry Doorly Zoo

Just looking for some feedback. I've added a ton of pictures and added info about the major exhibits. I'd also be interested in any other good zoo articles on WP. The best I've found is National Zoological Park (United States).

What didn't the article tell you about the omaha zoo that you'd want to know? Cburnett 03:30, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am familiar with the Zoo, and I like the images alot. If you're shooting for a Featured Article level, the galleries will have to be trimmed and I suggest they all be placed in Commons, if they aren't already, and linked with a {{commons|Henry Doorly Zoo}} link to a category page where all the images can be seen there. This link goes into the top of the cited references section usually. I would expand the history and especially the genetics research sections...I do know the Zoo is heavily vested in work in species preservation related to animals from Madagascar so that can be expanded. I would ditch the admission section...seems too much like advertising. The main thing the article needs, however, is to incorporate all the lists into paragraph style texts as much as possible. Don't forget to mention the efforts to get Pandas there at the zoo and convert the references into cited references using the templates from here. I'll go ahead and make sure all the images are in Commons and provide a link for you in the refs.--MONGO 04:49, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Only two pics are not on commons and those were there prior to me "going to town" on it. I'll have to look into the genetics research more Ideally, I'd like to expand those species lists much further. Best case, I guess, would be a separate article List of species at the Henry Doorly Zoo with the notable species in paragraph form like you suggest. Thanks for the ideas. Cburnett 05:36, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I dug into archive.org and pulled out admission prices back to 1999. Maybe I'm weird and find that historical trend interesting. How about you? Cburnett 06:29, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There have been a lot of enhancements over the past 5 years that probably still make it a great value for the buck...but no doubt an almost doubling of the single person adult entrance fee in 7 years is a lot. Can we use cite.php for the references as the only way anyone can check most of them is to hit the edit this page link and cut and paste them into a new window. You have the makings of a potential FA here with some reorganization I believe.--MONGO 06:37, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You lost me on the cite.php bit. I can click the "[6]" next to the year and it jumps me to the references section which has the exact link I used to pull the prices from. I'm not sure where having to edit the page to copy a url to a new window is necessary... In short: I'm confused. :) Cburnett 06:52, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The first ref that links me to an external link i can then go to is ref #1 in the section beginning in Scott Kingdom of the Seas Aquarium. The ones above, I click them and nothing happens.--MONGO 06:56, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I see. At home I get a list of 17 references but at work I only see 5 starting with the aquarium and nothing changed between viewings so I'm apt to believe it's a wikipedia issue not a how-I-did-it issue. Open to suggestions though... Cburnett 13:42, 11 October 2006 (UTC) I now see all 17 at work so I dunno what's going on... Cburnett 16:00, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I put some comments on the talk page. Sorry for the inconvenience. A mcmurray 06:39, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks. I replied there but the jist here: yeah, I was a bit liberal in internal linking of units and I agree that admission prices are probably for wikitravel but I changed it to a historical look at admission prices instead which I think makes it more encyclopedic (draw any trends or conclusions you wish from the data) since the 1999 price does nothing to get you in the zoo now. Cburnett 06:52, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Ruhrfisch 02:47, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The article reads like a list and picture gallery. The article seems to be useful for lookign up facts but the prose is so far broken apart by lists and galleries of animals as to be unreadable. Also you may want to re-check the facts "the Desert Dome's geodesic dome is also the world's largest". In fact it isn't even half as big as the worlds largest. -Ravedave ^{(help name my baby)} 20:58, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry, that's the world's largest glazed geodesic dome according to the zoo. I have fixed it. As for prose: agreed like I've said above. Cburnett 22:43, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]