Talk:The Photo Ark

DYK
This article's DYK appearance garnered it 3,377 pageviews.

TV series (2017)
Article needs an update to cover this series, "Produced by WGBH Boston and SO WORLD MEDIA in association with National Geographic". yoyo (talk) 05:42, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

Progress section
Recent edits have reinstated the "Progress" section within the article. These elements resemble postings to a company blog and are trivia in nature (pun intented). There is no more significance to the 5,000th addition to the list than there was for the 4,999th. It may be appropriate to list the current total number of images collected, but the rest should be deleted (again). I hereby propose that the "Progress" section be removed from the article. Loopy30 (talk) 22:03, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
 * As the creator of this article let me say that it went through a DYK review with that section I believe and survived years without complaint. This is a notable project of a notable, significant organization, (not like a "company blog") and I see no problem in specifying details of these milestones (only a few more are expected) and thereby bringing attention to the endangered animals by linking to each of those Wiki articles. Rp2006 (talk) 01:54, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
 * But the choice of animal here is arbitrary. I concur that the article would be better with the Progress section removed (a snappier article is more likely to be read by more people; WP:TOOMUCH). There is only 1 source in this section that isn't a primary source. We need independent reliable sources to demonstarte that the claims are notable. -Lopifalko (talk) 10:33, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
 * The choice of animal is not "arbitrary;" they are the thousand milestones and thus the only ones reported on. What is WP:TOOMUCH is clearly arbitrary. This certainly does NOT fit indiscriminate detail ("Before inserting new material, consider its significance. Is this something the topic is widely known for? What is its connection to the topic's notability?"). And no, these milestones are not "claims" as such that need to be from a secondary, independent source to validate their truth. Do you think NatGeo (a WP:noteable org) isn't being truthful about its milestones? Rp2006 (talk) 18:55, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

Well I seem to be of a minority opinion on this. What about a shorter version? Perhaps added to an existing Section instead of being a stand-alone Section. Something like...

National Geographic periodically reported on the project's status highlighting the animals photographed for significant milestones. These included the naked mole-rat,(R|Reader) the Leadbeater's possum,(R|SevenThousand) the Pyrenean desman,(R|Gibbens) the Bandula barb,(R|ROTH9000) the long-toothed dart moth,(R|11,000) the Arabian cobra,(R|12,000) and the spoon-billed sandpiper.(R|13,000) Rp2006 (talk) 20:15, 15 January 2023 (UTC)


 * I think that is duplicating the PhotoArk content here in the Wiki. To me, the Wiki should describe the project without repeating its content. A few examples of the included animals would be fine but it sounds like you are trying to update this article in tandem with the project itself. People should go to the project itself to see what's happening there. AL Virginia (talk) 16:13, 30 January 2023 (UTC)