Wikipedia:Peer review/Monterey Bay Aquarium/archive1

Monterey Bay Aquarium
I rewrote this article from scratch over the course of about a year, leading up to GA status, and have never written on WP so extensively before, so I am open to all nitpick-y feedback… prose, formatting, organization/layout, images, references, etc. I am interested in bringing it to FAC. I've recently commented on two PR requests (1, 2). Thanks! Rhinopias (talk) 00:55, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Comments from Anarchyte

 * Lead
 * more than 16 days. How about longer than 16 days?
 * has had an average annual attendance of 1.8 million visitors and over 50 million people visited the aquarium between 1984 and 2016. Shorten to has had an average annual attendance of 1.8 million visitors, with a total of over 50 million visitors since its inception. Or something along those lines.
 * Changed to "has had an average annual attendance of 1.8 million visitors, totaling over 50 million between its opening in 1984 and 2016." which seems a bit more succinct to me.
 * Parents magazine listed the aquarium as the best public aquarium and third best overall United States animal attraction in 2015 Had to have a double take here. Might want to change the wording (you've used "aquarium" quite a few times in two sentences). Is "overall" needed?
 * and TripAdvisor ranked the aquarium as the number one public aquarium in the world in 2014. Another two instances of "aquarium". Also, given this award was in 2014 and the one above was in 2015, shouldn't this be listed first? The next sentence is fine, though.


 * History
 * About 2.4 million people. How about "Approximately 2.4..."
 * I suggest a fullstop after The aquarium is known for its regional focus on Monterey Bay and its display of marine life communities rather than individual species.
 * Twenty-five Year Award. Shouldn't Five be capitalised? (for both and it's how it's written in the source)
 * Seems it was brought up in the FA discussion for Twenty-five Year Award, in which one person said the MOS didn't say (at the time?) so it doesn't matter, but another cited WP:ORDINAL. I think MOS:HYPHENCAPS is applicable to "-five" so it shouldn't be.
 * by the jury. Do we need this?
 * Other lesser additions. Change to Other smaller additions. IMO "lesser" implies it's lower quality. Smaller tells us they weren't as expansive.
 * and has led the aquarium to become influential in fisheries management and the public discussion related to sustainable seafood. How about and has lead to the aquarium being influential to both the fisheries management industry and the public discussion regarding sustainable seafood?
 * How's this sentence? "This program has continued to evolve and has placed the aquarium in an influential position, impacting both fisheries management and the public discussion regarding seafood sustainability."
 * Yup. That's good.  Anarchyte ( work  &#124;  talk )  04:43, 6 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Aquarium exhibits
 * is pumped into the Kelp Forest exhibit and the aquarium’s other exhibits → is pumped into the Kelp Forest and other exhibits


 * Kelp Forest exhibit
 * (a large plunger) There's nothing wrong here, just made me laugh.
 * :P


 * Open Sea wing
 * I've made a couple changes, hope they're okay.
 * "on exhibit" is used in quite a few other instances in the article to refer to animals "on display". I changed it back but if you think I should change them all I'll look into it more. I think—but maybe incorrectly based off your use of "fullstop"—maybe it's our geographical differences? I did a random search to see if I'm loony and found this article from NPR that uses it twice. (Also this random museum, and I've definitely heard/seen it in relation to museum things.)
 * I don't mind if you change it back. Here's Merriam-Webster.  Anarchyte ( work  &#124;  talk )  04:43, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Seems they're both acceptable! (I don't know why I didn't think to check a dictionary…)


 * awarded the wing with its Exhibit Award remove "with"
 * This might just be my ignorance, but aren't great white sharks usually shortened to "great whites", not "white sharks"? I noticed both terms are used throughout the article.
 * Popularly it's "great white" but in the scientific realm the more common shortening is "white shark" (Scholar). I'm assuming because great white seems very ambiguous and white shark makes it clear what someone is talking about! Great white shark over and over again seems like overkill to me, but I tried to open any discussion using it. Just added it to a later image caption.
 * A 10-month, US$19 million renovation of the wing concluded in July 2011 to refurbish the Open Sea exhibit, as the 300-pound. Reads a little bit jumbled.
 * Added a bit more to that section, hope it's better!

I think the touching exhibit image is too focused on the person. I'd remove it.
 * Gallery of permanent exhibits
 * Good call. Is File:Intertidal touching exhibit at Monterey Bay Aquarium.jpg too people-focused? If so I may see if something else can fit as long as you don't think there are too many images.
 * I would not include either of them, and depending on screen size the images may take up too much space as it is anyway. Do we need the intertidal photo either? I don't see any mention it in the prose.
 * Removed both! OK last question, is File:Pacific mackerel exhibit at Monterey Bay Aquarium.jpg a better fit in the gallery than the picture of the large sunfish? It shows the interior of the gallery a bit which only one other really does. That's it I won't respond to this bullet again.
 * I'm not sure. They both have their own merits, but the mackerel photo is of higher quality. I'll leave it up to you.


 * Marine life
 * What does "non-releasable" mean?
 * Changed the sentence to "in which adult female sea otters that have been rehabilitated but cannot be released act as …" and got rid of the later mention. Unless you mean what is required for an animal to be non-releasable?
 * No, this is fine now.


 * For the aquarium's temporary exhibition that opened in 2014, the aquarium cultured many cephalopods because of their short life cycles. Could you reword this?
 * Expanded that part a little in this edit. Changed that sentence to "For the duration of the exhibition, half of the animals were cultured because of their short life cycles." Maybe needs more elaboration still?
 * As someone who knows nothing about the topic, I think the sentence explains it well enough.


 * and some scientific insights from it Seems out of place. Should it go before "impact of Project White Shark?
 * Changed to "… expressed approval for the logistical design, the educational impact, and some scientific insights of Project White Shark." Does "scientific insights of" make sense? That's why I had it after, because of the of/of/from.
 * How about: expressed approval of Project White Shark because of the scientific insights, its logistical design, and its educational impact?
 * Changed to similar (here). I was stuck on using some because I thought it was warranted, but re-reading the source I don't think it's necessary. I have the three components in decreasing order though, which I think is pretty clear from how frequently they talk about each in the article.


 * more than 16 days Same issue as what was mentioned in the lead


 * Seafood program
 * By 2015, the program's mobile apps had been downloaded more than one million times since 2009 and it had produced more than 52 million printed pocket guides. How about: The program's mobile apps had been downloaded over one million times between 2009 and 2015. The program has also produced more than 52 million printed pocket guides. I'm not sure what timeframe we're looking at for the pocket guides, so you might want to add that.
 * Reworked these sentences but also reordered parts of the first two paragraphs. Let me know if you think something's off.
 * It was reported to be → It was reportedly

Thanks for looking over my PR. Here are a few ideas to start you off and I'll add some more in an hour or so's time when I finish something.  Anarchyte ( work  &#124;  talk )  05:33, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I'll finish looking at the rest of the article later.  Anarchyte ( work  &#124;  talk )  07:21, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
 * The rest looks fine.  Anarchyte ( work  &#124;  talk )  08:15, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
 * That was quick!! Thanks, . I've responded to many of your comments. Rhinopias (talk) 04:02, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I've replied above. Article's looking good!  Anarchyte ( work  &#124;  talk )  04:43, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I appreciate all of your comments! I'm just going to keep trying to squeeze approval from you for more images, because I'm rather obsessed enamored by their exhibits. Rhinopias (talk) 04:11, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Replied above.  Anarchyte ( work  &#124;  talk )  04:37, 7 January 2018 (UTC)