Talk:Monterey Bay Aquarium/GA1

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

I'll take this on. Reviewer: Chiswick Chap (talk · contribs) 15:00, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Minor comments

 * "The aquarium has been called "a definite leader"[5] by its accrediting organization, the Association of Zoos and Aquariums, having been" - suggest "Aquariums. It has been ..."


 * "has also been granted multiple awards by the media and the travel industry; Parents ..." - suggest "has won multiple media and travel industry awards. Parents ..."


 * " by visitation." - suggest "by number of visits."
 * Does "by number of visitors" sound less awkward at all? – Rhinopias (talk) 05:12, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Does "by number of visitors" sound less awkward at all? – Rhinopias (talk) 05:12, 18 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Lead image caption "Main entrance to the aquarium in 2016" - suggest we drop "to the aquarium".


 * "The first of which, titled "Mexico's Secret Sea"," - suggest "The first of these, ..."


 * "Prior to the first white shark's more than six month stay—totaling 198 days—at the aquarium before being released, the longest length of time a white shark survived in an aquarium was 16 days." could perhaps be phrased to flow more easily.
 * . Changed to "Prior to the display of the first white shark for six months before its release, the longest length of time that a white shark survived in an aquarium was 16 days." Alternatively, that line can be cut as the information is present in the section that talks about the white sharks in more detail (which is linked in the preceding sentence) and something more general could be added? e.g. Six great white sharks were displayed in the Open Sea exhibit between 2004–2011, an effort contested by some but generally described as having a positive scientific and educational impact. The aquarium described the second white shark on exhibit as "a powerful emissary for ocean conservation."(Squatriglia 2007)
 * It almost doesn't seem relevant to me to have any of the above in the section specifically about the exhibit the sharks were in, but it seems to be what the aquarium is most known for so maybe a quick summary of the more detailed section is worth mentioning in the exhibit's section? – Rhinopias (talk) 00:36, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm happy with it either way. You have certainly covered "the main points" which is what is required. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:59, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Images

 * All are well-chosen and licensed on Commons.
 * I thought I should mention that I searched extensively through Commons and Flickr to find usable, high-quality images in place of my own that are currently in the article. Always open to alternatives. – Rhinopias (talk) 00:50, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, diversity of sources is desirable, but not a GA criterion. It's fine to use your own (excellent) images as long as they don't convey the impression of advertising, which these do not. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:01, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Summary

 * This elegantly-constructed and carefully-cited article is easily up to the required standard. I have made only some minor stylistic suggestions which I hope will be useful. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:41, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks, ! This is my first time really writing in encyclopedic style, so if anything is questionably non-neutral do point it out. – Rhinopias (talk) 02:02, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Also, I was unsure about where to nominate this article. Regardless of this particular nomination, comments would be appreciated at WT:GA. I'd be bold myself but I myself am not sure which option (or one not listed) would be appropriate. – Rhinopias (talk) 02:21, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Many thanks. WT:GA is only for problems where the reviewer needs to seek help. I've no idea why you'd want "comments" there: this page is where people will come, if at all, and of course you can write on your own user page(s). Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:35, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
 * sorry for the vague and mysterious use of linking, but I meant to say that I brought up a discussion on the placement of this article and other public aquariums/zoos at the talk for the list of good articles here, because I was confused about which topic to use to nominate this article. – Rhinopias (talk) 16:35, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Well, we're all done here. Good work! I hope you will do many more such articles, and will consider taking the time to review one or two articles by other people at GAN. All the best, Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:03, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks! – Rhinopias (talk) 16:35, 18 October 2017 (UTC)