Talk:Houston Zoo

Admission prices

Please add adimssion prices to this article. It is mentioned that in 1988 the zoo is no longer free, but what are the current rates or the rate they chose to use in 1988. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.240.234.84 (talk • contribs).

Provided admission prices isn't really what belongs on wikipedia. Just simply click on the zoo's website link and you will find the prices there. As of January 19, 2007 it was $8.50 for an adult. Cburnett 04:05, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Invalid Url

http://www.houstonzoo.org/pressroom/ is the correct link, not /press_room/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.64.14.2 (talk) 16:13, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I removed the "History" section for non-neutral tone, plagiarism, other issues

This section was unacceptably promotional in tone and nearly devoid of sourcing. It turned out to be plagiarized (largely verbatim) from the zoo's own promotional materials, which explains why it was wholly uncritical and chock-full of glowing descriptors and opinions that have no place in a serious encyclopedia article, including (but not limited to):

• "[They] were loved and respected by all."

• "[He] was a very special and talented individual...."

• "...his definitive book on Texas snakes."

• "...the incredible Zoo Friends organization."

• "This public/private partnership has proven to be mutually beneficial for everyone...."

• "[After] 2000, the Zoo ... just kept improving...."

• "[He] was a great spokesperson for the zoo and greatly elevated its stature in the community."

• "[Her] passion and talent has helped the Zoo become one of the most successful non-profit organizations in the City."

In one revealing instance, the now-deleted section also retained the first-person perspective of the plagiarized materials ("Jim Brighton ... is designing our African Forest habitats"), and a whole paragraph was spent describing the zoo's future plans -- for 2015, which is now in the past. Given all these glaring issues, I thought it best to simply remove the section altogether. This article would benefit from an entirely new "History" section written from scratch using acceptable, objective sources. A major (and not uncontroversial) cultural institution of the fourth-largest city in the United States (not to mention one that received almost 2.5 million visitors in 2015) deserves as much. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.121.232.124 (talk) 09:11, 16 June 2016 (UTC)