Talk:Binky (polar bear)

failed "good article" nomination

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): There is a good deal of improvement needed here. As it stands, the article is now just a jumble of disconnected tidbits. b (MoS): The article needs major work per the Manual of Style, especially needing sectioning.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): Article sticks solely to the sensationalist bits covered by news media, rather than providing a comprehensive background and history of the animal and the events. b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   a (fair representation): Article fails to comprehensively and fairly cover the topic, giving undue weight to only some points of view. b (all significant views):

5. It is stable.

   

6. It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic.

   a (tagged and captioned): b lack of images (does not in itself exclude GA): c (non-free images have fair use rationales):

7. Overall:

   a Pass/Fail: VanTucky ^Talk 22:59, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Comments on new GA nomination

Google has now digitized a bunch of old papers, so I was able to flesh out Binky's pre-mauling life. Please understand that there's not too much out there about this bear - after all, he just paced around in a zoo for most of his life... :) Calliopejen1 (talk) 00:43, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for doing this, I still have my Binky t-shirt with the very photo that is used in the article printed on it. Where I am originally from in Ohio a polar bear mauled someone who did something stupid at the zoo and they put the bear down. That in a nutshell is why I live in Alaska, where the bear is not blamed for being a bear.Beeblebrox (talk) 18:55, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Wasn't Binky featured on the first When Animals Attack! special? I'll see if I can find a source for that, I'm pretty sure I remember seeing a segment on Binky on that oh-so-enlightening program. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:32, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Binky (polar bear)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Aaron north (talk) 05:34, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

First, I suspect that concerns about Notability may come up someday, now or in the future from other editors or reviewers. WP:N I believe the subject is notable enough to merit a seperate article. Wikipedia is not a news source, so a subject that is covered only briefly, even if the coverage is broad all over the world for just one incident where facts are reported and little or no debate and discussion takes place, is not notable. Had this been a bear attack at a zoo where the animal was put down, or the public didn't really react and there was a settled lawsuit and nothing else, etc then this would not be notable. Without the photo in the article, that very well may have happened. However, it appears that the widely-seen photo of the bear with the shoe (as well as perhaps a slow news cycle) may have helped spark a lot of reaction, discussion, and analysis about the responsibility of a zoo to ensure safety vs the responsibility of the patrons not to be idiots. There was also a 2nd incident (so not just 1 story that died down), and it seems Binky became some sort of weird folk hero in Alaska complete with t-shirts, books, and other merchandise. As for the thought that Binky may have only been notable a decade or so ago but not any more, I refer to WP:NTEMP which basically says that once a subject meets WP's notability standards, it never loses notability through the passage of time. Aaron north (talk) 23:58, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Y Anyway, all that said, I have finished my review. There is not much to say about the subject, but this article seems to cover what there is to know about the bear, it is well-written, neutral, and well-sourced. This is a tricky article to source when you have to primarily rely on newspaper articles that are old, some over 30 years old. After one minor fix, this is an easy pass. Aaron north (talk) 23:58, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

"in his cage" edits

I have reverted this twice, and it has just been added a third time. First off, Binky was not alone, there were two bears in the enclosure. Second, it was not a "cage" but a large outdoor enclosure. It just reads better the way it was written and is more factually accurate. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:08, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

I agree that bears is more accurate. There were two bears, Binky and Nuka, not just one. If it's necessary, both bears could be named in the sentence.--xanchester (t) 08:42, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

It's just been added back again, I'm off to WP:RFPP. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:17, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Lead to detailed

Most of it belongs to early life, or maybe a "background" section. That some zoo in Anchorage had an elephant that Jack Snyder had won in a contest is hardly relevant for the article overall and certainly does not belong in a summary of it. --mfb (talk) 22:48, 22 July 2019 (UTC)