Talk:Columbus Zoo and Aquarium/GA1

GA Reassessment
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the reassessment.''

I am sure this article met the criteria in 2007. However, since then standards have risen considerable while the article has degraded in quality. Per the GAR instructions, I will only list the major problems, but there are a number of minor problems as well. I will give a week or two for serious effort to be made to fix the problems and then delist if needed. --ThaddeusB (talk) 00:22, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

History section
The history section is poor. It is too short for a long-standing highly notable zoo. There are large gaps in coverage and what is or is not included seems random. For example, the 1992 Giant Panda exhibit that attracted huge media attention, but was a financial failure and led to Jack Hanna "retiring" as director is not mentioned. The 2011 exotic animal release that ha very little to do with the zoo is mentioned, but there is very little on the zoo's expansion in the same time frame.

Other omissions
The golf course is mentioned via a single sentence in the lead only (a violation of WP:LEAD). It should have a brief summary ala The Wilds and Zoombezi Bay.

The article needs a response/reputation section. For an average zoo, that might not be a big deal, but for a zoo that bills itself as the nation's top zoo this is a big part of its notability and needs covered. (Again, mentioning it only in the lead is both insufficient & a violation of LEAD.

An economics/impact on the community section would be good to add, although perhaps not crucial.

Other lead problems
In addition to the material that appears only in the lead, mentioned above, the lead is not an adequate summary of the body of the article because it does not cover history at all. Half the lead is referenced and half unreferenced; references are optional as long as the lead is a proper summary of the body, but whichever style (refs/no refs) is chosen it should be consistently.

Sourcing
The article has very little independent sourcing. There are some sections unreferenced and the majority of the referenced material is to Columbus Zoo literature. That might be OK for straight-forward descriptions of exhibits, but sourcing statements such as "The Columbus Zoo has become a leader in breeding gorillas" to Zoo literature creates a neutrality problem.

Additionally, all the references on "current" exhibits date to 2006/7. As anyone familiar with the zoo would know, things have changed considerably in the last 7 years. In 2011, an IP claiming to be a zoo employee removed a huge amount of text as outdated. No doubt much more has outdated since then.

Misc
The lists of animals at the zoo is arbitrary (hundreds aren't listed) and unnecessary. Notable examples should be incorporated naturally into the prose and the lists removed.

De-listing
Since there has been no response or significant article work in two weeks, I will de-list the article. Feel free to request a fresh GA review through the normla process, or by contacting me directly, if the issues are addressed. --ThaddeusB (talk) 15:35, 20 May 2014 (UTC)