Talk:Alaska Wildlife Conservation Center

Original research (2010-08)
This article not only sounds like an ad, it is written from the point of view of an insider (note "our" and other usage). If there is a source for the BEARS project information at the detail shown, I have not been able to find it, indicating that this may well be an "inside job". It also contains a lot of point of view words, like "spectacular." In addition, the photos are on the Web site, which makes their attribution and copyright status here somewhat suspicious. I am going to start deleting things soon on the basis of point of view and original research unless I see some citations for the information that is being placed here, as well as some PoV rewriting. If either Zooaction or 209.112.219.57 are employees (I'm guessing that these are actually the same person), then this is a conflict of interest and you should cease and desist. Wikipedia is not a place to advertise your venue. Donlammers (talk) 12:16, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Whoever you are, Zooaction, you are obviously not paying attention to your own user talk page. The photos, which are all on the organization's Web site or other Web sites, are being deleted about as fast as you can put them up. You need to either prove that you actually have the rights to these photos, or please stop putting them up. There is a process for this, and although I have never had to use it (my phjotos don't appear on someone else's Web site), I can probably help you figure it out. In addition, you just removed my "more citations" tag despite my initial note above. The BEARS section is completely unsourced and sounds like inside information (i.e., original research). I cannot verify this information, and am putting back the citation requests. Please do not remove them until you have properly cited the article. If you need help with citation format and such, just type the URL in the article where you want the citation, enclosed in single brackets like this: [url]. I can get them into the proper format for you. I am trying to help here, as you can see by the fact that I posted a logo properly after you failed twice. Donlammers (talk) 12:35, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Conflict of Interest
User:Zooaction has been extensively editing articles related to Sandra Dee Robinson and Alaska Wildlife Conservation Center. He or she claims to have created File:BearsConceptAnoroof.jpg and File:Awcc (2).jpg. There seems to be a clear conflict here, and the article needs to be reviewed by uninvolved editors to determine if the content meets policies and guidelines. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:00, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Promotional language
The article contains inappropriate and/or promotional language ("open daily March through December", "lies nestled between glaciated peaks", "its scenic drive along mountains and fjords", and more). Articles on Wikipedia must follow an encyclopedic style and should not substitute for an official website. For example, the "Location" section has no encyclopedic content and is clearly intended as a promotion. The AWCC is a good cause, but its promotion here must be much more subtle. When I have an opportunity, I will edit the article and trim out some of the excess language. Johnuniq (talk) 04:11, 2 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I had not had a chance to take much of a look at the latest additions. I have deleted some of them, notably the Location section just added yesterday, and the resume-like narrative at the end of the BEARS section. The BEARS section is clearly original research (the "facts" are different from what I've been able to find on the Web), most likely from inside info. For a while there were architectural drawings, clearly from the Web site, which have since been deleted from Commons. I believe that the rest of the photos are in the process of being deleted from Commons as they all appear on the Web somewhere. I do have some citations that will let me rewrite this, and tried to include them in the article elsewhere (just so I don't lose the references). The first reference (name="legfin") is the application for funding from the state, and probably contains enough information about the B.E.A.R.S. center to rewrite and compress the section, with citation, if you get to it before I do.


 * Statements like "open daily March through December" "open year round" are fairly common in zoo articles, since many zoos are seasonal. I don't personally think this is promotional in itself, though I guess that's open to interpretation. If we were to decide that operating seasons (I never include hours or rates in articles I've worked on) are inappropriate, and want to be consistent, that would affect quite a few articles. I agree that any more detail is inappropriate, though I have not tried to "scrub" zoo articles for such information -- many even contain pricing information. Donlammers (talk) 11:50, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Sticking to an informal convention of a brief mention of seasonal openings is fine. Good edits! Johnuniq (talk) 03:46, 3 September 2010 (UTC)


 * The article does not read like this now, in 2022, so I removed the flag placed in 2010. The article is informative now. - - Prairieplant (talk) 19:10, 10 July 2022 (UTC)