Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Monterey Bay Aquarium/archive1

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was archived by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 14:51, 15 May 2018 [1].

Monterey Bay Aquarium

Nominator(s): Rhinopias (talk) 02:53, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Monterey Bay Aquarium is a public aquarium that has a fascinating history and a solid reputation in the US (and I would imagine overseas), but also participates in an interesting breadth of activities with which both visitors and non-visitors are likely unfamiliar. I hope you (yes... you can be a reviewer!) enjoy reviewing the article, and I look forward to your feedback. Rhinopias (talk) 02:53, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Images are appropriately licensed. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:05, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from Jackdude101

It is—

well-written: The prose is satisfactory overall. The only glaring issue was in the History and facilities section here: As of 2016, the aquarium has also developed numerous temporary exhibitions since the late‑1980s. The "As of 2016" phrase is redundant and should be removed.
comprehensive: The article appears to address everything notable about the topic.
well-researched: The article appears to be well-researched with 99 101 separate references cited.
neutral: Neutrality is satisfactory.
stable: The only organic edits to the article over the past four months have been from the nominator, so no issues here.

Style guidelines

a lead: Some elements in the last paragraph related to critical acclaim are not mentioned in the article body. This should be addressed.
appropriate structure: Structure is appropriate.
consistent citations: Citations are good overall. However, there should be a citation in the first line of the second paragraph of the Great white sharks sub-section. Ideally, the names of some of the groups that supported the program and the name of the one group that opposed the program should be mentioned, also.

Media: The number of pictures in the article is just right and they are spread throughout the article appropriately.
Length: Length is satisfactory.

This was an interesting read and I have now added this place to my bucket list of things to see if and when I ever visit California. Address the handful of minor things above and I will support this nomination. Jackdude101 ^talk ^cont 00:15, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your review, Jackdude101. I've corrected the redundancy you pointed out. For the lead's elements that were not within the body, I added this sentence to section History and facility, moved this one about total attendance to Community and economic influence, and moved these to In media and popular culture.

The sentence of the section Great white sharks you mentioned doesn't have a footnote because it is cited by the following sentence's footnote (which has a quote), so I didn't want to repeat it redundantly. I can certainly add it, if you think the statement on its own prior to elaboration warrants the footnote? Regarding naming critics and supporters, I expanded the criticism with a source I found looking more into the one person/organization named as a critic in the 2006 reference the first half of the paragraph uses. He is the only critic mentioned in multiple articles from the SF Chronicle and the LA Times. The supporting biologist who is quoted doesn't seem to be very well known so I'm not sure if naming him is warranted, but the reference uses the phrase Several marine biologists disagree, however, saying … in introducing him, which is where my weight came from ("At least one organization" vs. "several independent biologists"). Besides the Australian who is quoted here, the source does quote two California-based academics in support of logistical aspects of the project who may be notable, but don't have Wikipedia articles. I expanded the end of the first paragraph to include them, but should I name them or their employers? Rhinopias (talk) 05:05, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Rhinopias: All of the changes you just made are great except for the one where you removed the following text from the lead: The aquarium has had an average annual attendance of 1.8 million visitors, totaling over 50 million through 2016. Attendance figures are critical facts for this type of article and should be kept in the lead. Some people may complain that the first figure will be mentioned in three places (lead, infobox, and article body), so perhaps only the 50 million figure should be added back to the lead. Take care of this last bit and I'll support. Jackdude101 ^talk ^cont 13:42, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Good point. I added it back here but included the annual number because I think that's the metric typically used for these institutions, and without it the total number has less meaning. Will cut it if someone disagrees, but removing the line from the infobox is also an option. Rhinopias (talk) 23:17, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Everything looks great now. I officially support this nomination. Jackdude101 ^talk ^cont 23:48, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Hawkeye7

Support Looks fine to me. But just to prove that I read it:

"webpages" should be "web pages"
"aclimated" is apparently grammatically correct; but I would have said "acclimatised" Meh.
Is there some reason for the weird hard-coded image sizes? Apart from the panorama I think they should just default. (MOS:IMGSIZE)

Hawkeye7 (discuss) 10:09, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Hawkeye7: I fixed "web pages" and removed image size specifications. It's prescriptive for me to say "acclimated" is correct in this circumstance because the sharks were in an artificial setting (see Acclimatization#Names), but I reworded it anyway to better reflect the source. Thanks! Rhinopias (talk) 05:39, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

All good. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 05:57, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments and support from Gerda

I noticed this great and unusual article at DYK and recommended it for here. Only a few comments, all regarding the lead:

I am not sure the great white shark (16 days) is needed in the lead.
"has had an influential role" - can that be said simpler?
"decided to revisit the concept of opening a public aquarium" - same question
"The media and the travel industry have awarded top accolades to the aquarium after comparing the feedback it receives from visitors with that of other attractions." - not sure if I understand it, not not sure about the position at the end of the lead.

Thank you! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:12, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Gerda Arendt! I think I've addressed your concerns:

I disagree that the mention of the feat isn't needed in the lead at all, but I could remove the specifics (that's really just "16 days" though). The article has a pretty decently sized section on the details surrounding the aquarium's attempts. Also, the aquarium's efforts to display them between 2004 and 2011 led to a great amount of coverage and is still being discussed (at least, in the US) as recently as 2016 whenever new, failed attempts are made to keep the species in captivity.
I reworded this sentence here.
How's this change? This is in reference to the first few sentences of #History and facility.
It's just at the end of the lead because it's the end of the article's body (at #In media and popular culture) and I think it's slightly less important than the other awards, but I shortened it with this edit because, you're right, the details are confusing and aren't needed. It was originally in the lead before I moved it to the last section so I didn't initially summarize it very well!

Let me know what you think. Rhinopias (talk) 22:44, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I still think that to first mention "a great white shark" + the 16 days, and then "the great white sharks" is repetitive and a bit confusing, - I'd prefer a summary of the efforts over the years to mentioning that one. Also, "In rankings of attractions, the media and the travel industry have distributed top accolades to the aquarium." is not my favourite sentence, - why "ranking", why "distribute", why "top accolades"?

I removed "for longer than 16 days" and joined the two sentences to remove the redundant "great white sharks" (with this edit). I'm not sure if the details can be summarized differently, because the details discussed between 2004–2011 (#Great white sharks) are just part of the effort to exhibit them (which they did most successfully). For example, no source describes how long it took for them to conduct research prior to 2004 when one was first successfully exhibited.

I also reworded the last sentence again in the same edit. I just used distribute and accolade as synonyms of given/received and award (because there aren't many different ways to describe awards?) but I removed those words. Rhinopias (talk) 22:29, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you again, and support. "the top attraction" still sounds a bit colloquial, also makes me ask in which group. Perhaps consider to end with the awards, but nothing to withhold support. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:38, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Instead of "the aquarium has been ranked as the top attraction", would "the aquarium has been highly ranked" be more appropriate? I could find other references to add to the section to make it more than just the two "top" ones. And also, thanks! Rhinopias (talk) 00:00, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. I guess listen to native speakers of English, rather than me ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:21, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done

Be consistent about whether you include locations and/or publishers for periodicals - it's not required, but if you're going to do it you should do it in a more organized fashion
Not sure it makes sense to have a SFN footnote link to another footnote. How are you deciding what ends up in Sources and what doesn't? The organization seems inconsistent, without a clear deciding factor
Publication names should be italicized, but organization names should not. In many cases it isn't necessary to include both |website= and |publisher= in web cites
See WP:NOTUSA, and why include country for some refs but not others?
What makes Blooloop a high-quality reliable source?
Channels do not need to be italicized
Given the dominance of web and news sources in this article, I'm concerned that other available sources may have been overlooked. Examples of sources that could potentially be included: [2][3][4][5][6]

Oppose pending resolution of some of the above. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:18, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have attempted to address the above concerns:

Removed publishers, and added some locations. I was under the impression that if the publication's name included its location, then the location should be omitted (e.g. less obvious Vancouver Courier, The Salinas Californian). Should I list all of them (or remove all of them) for consistency?

It's fine to include them only for a certain class of refs, as long as this is consistent. For example, you include a location of Monterey for The Monterey County Herald, but do not include any location for Parents - this would seem not to match the pattern you've established. You could also decide not to include locations for any magazines or journals, but then you'd need to remove it from Consult-Specifying Engineer. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:55, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ah yes, I didn't notice the location on the magazine. I had added locations to The Monterey County Herald because I thought it wasn't clear where it's based. I've removed it now because I think the reader can assume it's in Monterey, California as the article heavily features the name of the city. Rhinopias (talk) 22:45, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've moved the templates of four sources in which this occurred so all SFNs point to #Sources. The section was originally for sources used more than once (more utilized than just one detail) but I didn't move some after adding an additional footnote for minor quotes or corroborating statements.

Found a couple more that were hiding… Rhinopias (talk) 02:40, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Addressed italics issues. I reviewed publisher information and removed those that were redundant, but I can remove more if desired.
Removed "USA", thanks for the MOS link. I think with that and replacing "Western United States" I've removed them all.
I wouldn't say it's the highest, but it was only being used to validate the primary reference's claim. I've merged the sentence with #Political advocacy as it makes more sense for the elaboration to be there anyway, so neither the ref in question nor the primary one are needed.
Addressed
I have thought about this concern being raised. Unfortunately, due to the nature of the subject, there isn't very helpful literature available. There are three articles used but at least two of them are primary sources, citing the water volume of an exhibit (Kingsley) and providing historical details for a claim (Knowles). All examples you've provided were authored by aquarium employees (including the final one's book chapter), so I'm not sure if it'd be appropriate to cite them for substantial details/claims if I can access them. (e.g. the visitor conservation research one's "Findings suggest that visitors to the Monterey Bay Aquarium are interested in and receptive to conservation content and learn new conservation information from exhibitions"...) I could at least use them to make a statement that the aquarium participates in research related these fields. I did find this independent paper, which I can use to elaborate on the related sentence in #Temporary exhibitions soon, and I should be able to grab a few statements from the 2006 PBS documentary that's available on YouTube.

I've started going through the documentary and haven't forgotten about the papers. I found a preview of that book chapter online and will go through it soon. (I had come across some of the papers, but this book was published last month!) I should have some time over the next few days. Rhinopias (talk) 02:40, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Rhinopias (talk) 03:45, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have added several cites to each the recent book chapter and the documentary. I used a few journal publications just to make a statement about research areas (first paragraph of #Research and conservation) but also found two biology papers and one (that is decently cited) on vet medicine. Added some independent commentary from publications here and here. I went through more than a dozen pages of a Scholar search and found nothing else relevant. Rhinopias (talk) 23:26, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support Edwininlondon

I enjoyed reading this. Comprehensive and well-written. Just a few minor comments.

Three separate proposals for aquariums --> perhaps Three separate proposals for an aquarium is less ambiguous
awarded the aquarium with two awards --> not the prettiest sentence in the article
rescue western snowy plover eggs and raise them --> can one raise eggs?
international --> not convinced this is a helpful link

In any case, I support on prose. Edwininlondon (talk) 18:19, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've addressed the first and last. Regarding the second, how's the paragraph after this edit? For the third, is this better? Thank you! Rhinopias (talk) 19:33, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, better! Edwininlondon (talk) 08:09, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@FAC coordinators: this nomination has been open for one month and I would guess that images and prose are sufficiently supported. If more feedback on sourcing is desired, I can put in a request. Rhinopias (talk) 01:10, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator notes: I'm not sure we're quite there yet. A few issues in the lead, just from a quick look. These are just examples, and this is not a full review. I think we need more review, and these are a few pointers to look out for. And if this is just in the lead, there may be similar examples throughout. Sarastro (talk) 21:03, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Why the references to 2016? Have matters changed since then?
"to have successfully exhibited a great white shark" I'm wondering what an unsuccessful exhibition would look like.
"the aquarium's seafood consumer awareness program": not immediately obvious what this means.
"Monterey Bay Aquarium's original facility" suggests that there has been more that one facility, but there is no mention of others in the lead.
"The facility has received three awards from the American Institute of Architects": The original one?
"recognizing the significance of its architecture and design in its capacity as a public aquarium" I'm not really sure what this means. Sarastro (talk) 21:03, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Understood. I am hopeful that these simply mean my attempt to summarize the body lacks clarity, and that the body itself is absent of such issues. Regarding the above, I've reworded the seafood program line, removed the unnecessary "original"s, and changed the last sentence mentioned (all with this edit). With the shark line, I suppose the reference to 2016 isn't necessary, but I was just trying to be explicit with such a large statement in that 2016 is the most recent source used in the article which makes the statement. (In contrast with the kelp or jellyfish statements, which can't become outdated.) To prevent it from becoming outdated I've changed the line to "and it was the first aquarium to successfully care for and display a great white shark." Regarding the second point, I had "for longer than 16 days" to explain what makes it a "success" but a reviewer did not agree with the detail in the lead. Other sentences in the article are: "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" (#Open Sea wing) and "As of 2016, Monterey Bay Aquarium is the only public aquarium in the world to have successfully exhibited a white shark for longer than 16 days" (#Great white sharks). Rhinopias (talk) 00:13, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Returning after a gap: Sorry for the delay here. I think it's best if I officially recuse on this one as I'm slightly snowed under IRL at the moment. One quick look through shows a few issues still though. The most obvious one is we are heavily over-using the word "aquarium". A search reveals 281 uses, and while quite a lot are in the references and others will refer to the full name of the article's subject, a ctrl-F search highlights that the word is used a lot: 13 times in the lead when it is not a proper noun, and 22 times in "History and facility" where it is not a proper noun. This suggests to me that some substantial rephrasing is needed in places. Sarastro (talk) 10:33, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I can take a look at the article; I'm familiar with the area, the Aquarium, and its history. It's a very nicely formatted page, with many lovely images, but I skimmed through a few days ago and thought the sourcing maybe could be better. That was only on a quick skim, though. It'll take a few days. Victoriaearle (tk) 16:31, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Ha! I had not thought to check how often I used the word outside of the subject's name. I removed seven instances in the lead and I will work more on this tomorrow. And thank you, Victoriaearle, I hope I can work to appease your concerns. Rhinopias (talk) 04:01, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose from Victoria

Based on the following Wikipedia:Featured article criteria:

1. b. (comprehensive): the Monterey Bay aquarium is well-known, not only for its history, exhibits, but also for its science and research. A quick glance at the article made me think it was a little skimpy and the sourcing seems to lack scholarly material (there's a body of it). In a five minute search on google books I found this University of California Press book that contains pages & pages of background on the building of the aquarium, none of which is included here. If the literature exists, we need to include at least some it in summary style. I also found this University of Washington book that describes the opening, an in-depth explanation of how the exhibits were designed, there's a passage about the white shark exhibit (in 2004 the shark was kept in captivity for 198 days before being released), and the controversy in terms of turning nature & Monterey Bay itself into tourism. The book tells us that in 1995 (20 some years ago), there were 563 species and 340,000 creatures (the creature count contradicts our article). Again, if it exists in the literature, it should be covered here too. I stopped after five minutes, but for a successful featured article, the nominator should do a relevant literature survey, read the material, and include the relevant information.
1. c. (well-researched) - see above.
possibly 1. d. (neutral) - if not comprehensive and well-researched there's risk of being promotional. My sense, again on a quick skim, is that this veers towards the promotional.
possibly 2. b. (appropriate structure) - the article should include the history and background of the aquarium, how the exhibits were designed and populated, etc. The lack of research affects the structure, imo.
2. c. (consistent citations) - the citation structure is very confusing to me. Beyond that, it relies on sources from Carmel, Monterey, the San Fran Bay Area, the LA Times, all of which by nature will be promotional tourism pieces. For example, I spot checked two sources in the first para: this LA Times piece in FN 6 cites the following: Packard spent $54 million to build the aquarium - the article says $40 million, so it fails verification. This article mentions the names of the students who had the idea to build the aquarium (which isn't in our article) but there's so much more in terms of environmentalism in the books than in this article, which mentions Ricketts and his influence on them, but is really a promotional piece. The information in the first sentence and the first part of the second sentence is not in that article, so again it fails verification. I didn't go beyond this. Victoriaearle (tk) 21:25, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
P.s I was curious about the discrepancy in the creature/species count between what our article says and the book says and find that in in 2006 we have a number of 600+ species, 35,000 animals (unsourced). As it stands the article cites the animal/species info to a 2011 & 2015 article, which makes me wonder if there's some mirroring going on, and a strong argument for using only the best sources, per the FA criteria. Victoriaearle (tk) 22:54, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Victoriaearle. It seems I missed more book sources than I thought that would be helpful in expanding on the facility's founding and construction. I suppose I didn't place much weight on adding minute details of its construction because my primary focus was referencing the old "History" section (which only used a broken link to the aquarium's website) with more reliable sources, and expanding as I came across things. I can certainly incorporate historical details from Shaping the Shoreline to further complete the aquarium's history. I understand that book sources can be more scholarly than media, but disagree that A Fascination for Fish should necessarily be considered a scholarly work on the founding of the aquarium as it's written by a "for many years curator" and it's a narrative of his career. I think many of these sources may be inherently less promotional, but that doesn't mean they're simply more useful than media sources? (Such as coverage of the aquarium in Marine Protected Areas: Principles and techniques for management, which is very embellished and must've been written before 1996 despite the publish date of 2012.) In the article, this Chronicle cover story is the sole source of the jellyfish paragraph in #Temporary exhibitions because it's an absolutely fantastic in-depth review of the aquarium's jellyfish exhibition efforts, and other news articles discuss minute details of research efforts that may not be found elsewhere (e.g. NYT 2016, Herald 2013, Chronicle 2006). The science-focused section is the largest in the article and has many small details that border on too much (with appropriate weight on the white shark efforts, which are very prominently covered in RS), so I'm not sure if you are also requesting more on those aspects of the article subject?
For your specific concerns, the "198 days" that the first white shark was exhibited in 2004 is mentioned in #Great white sharks with metrics of its growth. I fixed placement of the footnotes surrounding the cost of the facility (with this edit), which I disrupted by adding the line from Lokken 1985 a while back. Every other source I've come across says $50+ million, and this article (that the sentence uses) references the number in between quotes from the aquarium's only director—who is also the daughter of the one who donated the money. The sentence on the ecological approach to the aquarium's exhibits is an aggregation of the four sources that are in the footnote: Thomas 2014 for the first sentence, Californian 2014 references the first part of the second sentence, Tribune 1991 influences both of those two parts by discussing communities and habitats, and the article you mentioned (which may have promotional prose) is solely used for the quote "Ed organized his chapters by habitat, and that, we believe, is where the habitat plan at the aquarium originated", which is the second part of the second sentence. I can split them up and have footnotes everywhere, but those two sentences are one point. I will see if a passage from Shaping the Shoreline can replace all of that within the next two days.
The 2011 article that cites the number of species in the aquarium is a rather random article, but that's the number I see most often and is quite consistent with other sources. The reason "35,000 animals and plants" comes from the business journal article is that it's an in-depth look at how the aquarium takes care of its animals and exhibits. The "340,000 individual creatures" in the book source includes over 106,000 strawberry anemones, and public aquariums don't generally include invertebrates in their animal counts – I could, however, add that number as an interesting addendum. I'm not really sure how the unsourced line from the 2006 version of the article should influence which numbers are used, but the aquarium's general press kit also says 550 and 35,000 and you'd think that, if the 300,000+ number had merit, they'd utilize that one in a press kit! Rhinopias (talk) 03:11, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, this is only adding to my long response, but in terms of the formatting of the references/sources sections—with which I think Nikkimaria also has concerns—would it be helpful to move all expanded citations, regardless of the frequency each is used, to the "Sources" section, so that "References" only contains shortened footnotes? In the sources section, the ones that are currently listed in references could have their own subsection to mean they're less heavily used? The issue is that many sources are used for quick, one-off references to complete topics which are then cluttering the reflist (e.g. the two articles in the very last sentence of #Great white sharks, which is good follow-up explaining more recent efforts… and most of the entire research section). I started bundling citations (like some of the awards footnotes) after coming across WP:CITEBUNDLE. I understand entirely that it looks very different from most FACs and probably the only reason I can navigate it is that I put it together over time, but I'm not sure of the best way to make it more readable. Rhinopias (talk) 04:01, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Rhinopias, don't worry about the long reply. I have to be offline for a few days and have only had time to skim it; I'll read through carefully later in the week. A quick short reply is that I should have prefaced my comments by saying that I believe this article is worth of featured status - but it's not quite there and the work to needed is best done outside of the glare of FAC. The literature survey is important (I really only spent a few moments looking), and once you have the sources lined up, then you'll know what to add and not to add. Presumably the story of how Monterey was essentially repurposed from one type of economy (aging cannery city) to another (tourism industry) would feature in the sources, but you can't know until reading all of them. Sorry, that's all I have time for right at this moment, but if this hasn't been closed, will write more in a few days. Victoriaearle (tk) 22:57, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Rhinopias a few replies now. Re, A Fascination for Fish, it's a source I'd accept because a university press published it, (so it falls into the "best possible source" category) and as a memoir, though a primary source, who better than the person who was involved in the early years of the aquarium? Yes, those types of sources have to be used judiciously, but shouldn't be completely rejected. It's best to try to read through the book and make a judgement in terms of whether the material can be used or not. In terms of whether a university press publication is more useful than media, that question is answered in 1. c. of Wikipedia:Featured article criteria. It's easier to find and read web sources, but a featured article requires the necessary research of relevant literature, and it seems that there might be literature available. Also, have you checked publications such as National Geographic, which would be better than local publications? I agree that the San Francisco Chronicle article about the jellyfish is nice. If it's the best possible source for that section, then it's the one to use, but I wouldn't dismiss scholarly sources out of hand. I still think there's some inconsistencies in the species/creatures numbers (the 106,000 sea anemones doesn't quite explain it), but that's a fact that can rely on a primary source. What does the aquarium literature say? Usually institutions like that have books, brochures, etc., and those too can be used. In terms of the citation formatting, it's confusing that some media publications have short citations and other's don't, so those need to be made consistent. If you do end up using any books, then it's best to have those as short cites, and set up the online references as long cites. I do like the new section you've written - it adds context that seems important in terms of how Stanford got involved, explains that it was four faculty members (not students as I believe I read in one of the sources), but it's a draft that needs some copyediting. I took a look at Disneyland, wondering whether there'd be mention of why Anaheim was chosen, the orange groves, etc., and think it has a decent "Origin" section. My advice is to do the work that needs to be done out of the glare of FAC, and bring it back when you're finished. That way you're not under pressure to get the research or reading done quickly, or having to reformat the citations in a hurry (which is a pain) or having to find a copyeditor. I'll take a swing through during the weekend to copyedit. If this is still open, will post prose suggestions then. Oh, one last thing, why does the new text say the cannery was situated on the border of Monterey and Pacific Grove but the hidden text says Chiang doesn't mention the location? Does he not mention Monterey or the Monterey Bay Area at all? Victoriaearle (tk) 16:29, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
this 2011 book looks interesting, with lots of background and a chapter about the aquarium. Victoriaearle (tk) 16:47, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose I don't need to source the Monterey/Pacific Grove sentence separately. The book discusses permitting issues the aquarium went through in both cities but doesn't explicitly say it straddles the two. Also, I took the 106,000 sea anemone tidbit from the book immediately after the 300k figure – I'm not entirely sure why every other source doesn't cite anything near that, but I still think it's worth mentioning. It's likely that just vertebrates are cited in the 35,000 number (seeing as easily more than half of them are clupeiforms), but to have 500+ species of vertebrates then seems unlikely. I see your point about A Fascination for Fish, which I may be able to get my hands on soon. I concede that the history section (prior to the expansion with Shaping the Shoreline) was inadequately detailed, and I still have a few pages of the book to review for a little more about the exhibits section and community influence section. I came across The Death and Life of Monterey Bay a couple days ago and it seems to mostly cover the same topics regarding history, but almost surely touches on the Ed Ricketts point I want to rewrite.
Halfway into the WorldCat book results search (which has 302 results when excluding "Monterey Bay Aquarium Research Institute") it seems to be all educational materials and field guides, etc., so I'm confused as to why there may be major points that are missing from the article, which would prevent 1b from being met. I can see details being obtained from some print sources, such as white shark efforts, exhibit dev process/theory, early dev of Open Sea wing, historical economics, and maybe some interesting tidbits from this self-published guide, but not major topics that the reader would miss out on.
Also, I have a picture in my head of how I might reorganize the references/sources, but unfortunately I have a busy weekend coming up and I am going out of town on the 11th. I'm not entirely opposed to archiving the nom for now, but the longest nom that's currently open has been open for a month longer than this one has and I'd appreciate some time to work on resolving this before it's archived. Rhinopias (talk) 04:33, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I do think you're on the right track, it's a lovely article, and definitely on its way to achieving FA status. To archive or not is up to the coordinators. In the meantime, I've started copyediting and will leave comments as I go. If it gets archived I'd definitely be willing to review again, and for now I'm happy to continue with the copyediting, provide guidance in terms of how to format the refs, and anything else you might want.

Lead

Consider adding the date when it opened to the first para of the lead
Maybe consider adding the marine biologists who conceived and pursued the idea were associated with Stanford.
This sentence is a bit awkward: "As a tourist destination it produces hundreds of millions of dollars for the economy of Monterey County, leading to the revitalization of Cannery Row." >> The sentence subject (it) is the aquarium, but in fact the millions of dollars aren't only spent there but throughout the county. Not only is Cannery Row revitalized (which is still sort of blech) but the economy of the entire area has been revitalized. Presumably sources exist for this, and the "Community and economic influence" section might need a bit of expansion.
After looking at Disneyland, which is obviously a huge tourist attraction, I removed the sentence the aquariums rankings lists of attractions, which I see is sourced to sites such as TripAdvisor & Frommers in the text. In my view, it veers a bit towards promotion. Others might disagree though.

Founding and design

I skipped this section while it's being revamped, but found this source re the $50+ million from the Packards. It's a primary source, but should be fine in this instance - they'd know how much they donated.

Aquarium exhibits

Without the water and plumbing systems there wouldn't be an aquarium, and the info in the first para is interesting. Have you considered splitting it out into a separate subheading? That's only a suggestion.
This sentence doesn't seem to fit with the para about the tanks/water (though I get the point that the tanks aren't big enough for whales): "In 2014, the aquarium stated that it takes no official position on the controversy of captive killer whales or other cetaceans. The aquarium was not constructed to house cetaceans, instead utilizing the 27 species of marine mammals that live in or travel through Monterey Bay as one of its exhibits by offering the opportunity to see wild marine mammals from decks that overlook the bay.[31]" >> I think this needs to be recast and maybe can have its own section. On a good day it's possible to see dolphins (sorry, using lay language here), various whales, California sea otters (always!) and seals, from the viewing platforms. Maybe add a separate para about the viewing platforms? Also one of the sources is really more to do with the building of the Vancouver Aquarium. It's another source I'd suggest swapping out for something better.

More later. Victoriaearle (tk) 20:14, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the positivity – I made my last comment after reading some intense discussion about archiving methods on WT:FAC, oops. Either way, this is good stuff, and I'd hope you would continue your detailed review on the talk if this is archived! Followed your suggestions on points for the lead. I tweaked the economics/Cannery Row line but, yes, that should evolve more when some details are added to the corresponding section. Don't disagree with the removal of the ranking lists line – the documentaries/films are a much more prominent feature of that section. Agree with this edit, but is it fine to not have a word (could be one other than totaling) before "more than"? I added the packard.org reference to Founding and design. I moved some content out of Founding and design to exhibits and seafood program. I'm not sure what to do with the line that's left in founding after the image – I think it's a pretty impressive quote, but can't think where it would be best relocated.

I made the seawater system content into a subsection; recently added a couple lines from the PBS documentary, so that filled it out a little. The viewing decks are mentioned briefly in Founding and design (in the image caption), but I'm not sure it'd be worthy of its own heading. I will be adding more to #Other permanent exhibits (hence the commented out thoughts), and I think information about the permanent sea otter exhibit will tie into the captive cetacean line (i.e. "no other mammals"). I think the specific reference to cetaceans in captivity is interesting because, as the Vancouver Aquarium experiences scrutiny regarding its mammal exhibits, the Vancouver Courier asks the subject (in another country, because it's one of the few good examples) about it's cetacean-less concept. The first half of the article is all about the subject's founding and its clever ability to still provide its visitors with the experience of seeing a cetacean. (Which was pretty genius considering the lack of prominent "animal rights" concerns, which surely developed after the late-70s/early-80s. If only the source went into more detail.) Rhinopias (talk) 00:02, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In terms of referencing, is Special:Diff/839989641 practical? "Footnotes" would point only to Sources section. Rhinopias (talk) 01:02, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Rhinopias, apologies for the delayed reply. I haven't been able to get back to this and doubt I'll be able to take a look until later in the week. That's one of my concerns; I'd like to give you a detailed review, but I've not been able to edit actively and I know that'll I be very slow getting through it. Anyway, reiterating my earlier comments - leaving it to the coords to decide, I'm more than happy to take the time outside of the glare of FAC to copyedit and post suggestions. If the FAC stays open (and you do have lots of supports above, so it's very possible), then you all will have to patient with my slowness, for which I apologize. Victoriaearle (tk) 16:09, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Quick note about formatting references: I took a look at your sandbox. It's on the right track in terms of separating web sources and book sources, but I'm not sure it's necessary to separate out magazine, news, etc. Generally I use short cites for books and journal articles with page numbers because I have to write a ref for separate pages, and use long cites for online media with the ref name markup (<ref name="" /> ) to allow repetition of the same reference. Essentially, though, it doesn't matter how it's done as long as it's consistent. As it is, it's confusing to see, for example, footnote #17 (an LA Times article) as a short cite followed by footnote #18 (also an LA Times article) as a long cite. A good example of an institution might be The Cloisters that, I believe, will eventually be brought to FAC. Also, I'd defer to Nikkimaria's advice. She's much more experienced in these matters. Victoriaearle (tk) 22:55, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Agree on that point - it's not required to use short cites for all (or any) media, but if you do, do so consistently. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:21, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No worries about reply timing, I have things to work on! And I will be going out of town in a few days and I am not sure how consistently I'll be editing. Good point about consistency, but if I use long cites for media then is it inconsistent to use the short cites when quotes are desired? (e.g. current #81 Yollin 2012: "The Monterey Bay Aquarium pioneered the display of jellyfish in North America and spawned a trend of jelly exhibits around the United States.") Perhaps it isn't necessary to include quotes from articles for verifiability when they're easy to find, and can most often be helped with keyboard shortcuts?

My confusion then with making all online sources long cites is that, in placing them in the "References" section along with all footnotes and other minor sources, is it less obvious to reviewers/readers which are used as major sources in the article? (While some in the current "Sources" section I have no problem lumping in with minor references, one that stands out is LA Times' Reynolds 2009, which is referenced 9 times – 4 times by itself, 3 times with a quote, twice with others – and in glancing at it now I see something else worthy of being added to the article.) Let's say, for example, I wanted to use the "Marine Protected Areas" book I mentioned earlier for just one detail, then would it not be appropriate to add it as a long cite with a page number in the "References" section even though other books are long cite (not in "References") + short cites with page numbers (in "References")?

Having four subsections makes sense to me with that thinking: notes, footnotes (short cites), sources (only long cites pointed to by short cites), and references (only long cites, no short cites associated). (Footnotes with lowercase alpha scheme, notes and references with numerical, sources organized by offline/online?) But that can't work if all reference types (e.g. books vs. online) are kept consistent in that they either have short cites or don't. The Cloisters#References has few online references so all are able to be placed with the short cites without looking cluttered, and has significantly more books/journals, so it makes sense to lump them together. Here, I think separating short cites out from all the long ones would be more organized. Sorry, does this make sense at all or am I being silly? Rhinopias (talk) 00:44, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I understand what you're saying, that you want the give sources used more often greater prominence than those only used once or twice. I rarely work with online sources, so can't really advise regarding how best to do this. All I know is that it has to adhere the the FAC criteria requirement that the referencing is consistent, which, to me, it doesn't seem to be. And my sense is that's an issue that will take time to sort out.

On a side note, the LA Times article you linked in your earlier comment is quite good - the $55 million number the Packards paid is mentioned in it, and it mentions why it's a popular tourist destination. In my view, that's a better source than TripAdvisor, which is a tad promotional. It's really better to let the numbers, i.e number of visitors speak for itself, and maybe get what you can from that LA Times piece, though it's almost a decade old.

Also, fwiw, I linked to The Cloisters because it's a good example of what a featured article about an institution should look like. I don't know of any others, but might dig around a bit. Victoriaearle (tk) 16:32, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Is "consistently formatted inline citations" implying further formatting consistency than consistency within each type of citation—note, short cite, long cite, etc? (For example, short cites all look the same, as in 2c's example.) I don't see formatting within groups of like-sources being implied in that general of a statement, especially when "offline" and "online" are sort of vague to begin with when most of the offline sources can be found online.

I've seen FAs that use primarily book sources and so have a nicely formatted short/long citation combination, and I've seen FAs that use all journal articles and just have them all as long cites, but this article developed relying on both of those methods. I organized the "Sources" section (moving a bunch of entries out of it) and started to migrate short cites to a separate area called "Footnotes" – would placing all of the short cites there help all around? Each section would then be consistent, and short cites that point somewhere else wouldn't be mixed in with long cites that don't. Rhinopias (talk) 23:16, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I moved the rest over and I think the refs section looks much better, but I don't love the mix of letters and numbers throughout the prose. Only different formats I can think of are: 1) make short cites into a reflist instead of notelist, but that'd make two versions of each number pointing to different things (whereas notes are prefixed with "note" in the footnote) or 2) prefix the short cites (e.g. "fn 1" like "note 1"), but there are many of them so that'd be bulky. Rhinopias (talk) 03:09, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've never seen it done that way. It is consistent, but I thought the lettering markup is reserved for actual notes? Nikkimaria? Victoriaearle (tk) 17:08, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I'm aware there is no requirement that lettering not be used for citations, but I will agree the present version looks a bit odd. It is okay to have short cites and long cites within a References section, as long as you're consistent about what kind of source uses each. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:27, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

General comments

I'm sorry, but I'm really not able to do this under the FAC timeline, so I think I'll bail out. The coords will weigh my oppose accordingly and I can always be pinged back if there's a lot of progress. Some general comments for now:
The prose still needs work. Examples only: lots of repetition throughout, i.,e the first two sentences of the "Founding and design" section shows repetition of "university" & "cannery". The aquarium is repeatedly referred to by its full name, which is bulky and can be streamlines, ditto for the bay. In "Other permanent exhibits", "The Monterey Bay Habitats tank, as its name suggests, represents various habitats in Monterey Bay, from wharfs to the sandy seafloor to deep rocky reefs.", and "In others, artificial rocks tricked visitors and fish alike."
Minor point, but liters is rendering as uppercase "L" while meters as lowercase "m". Consistency needed.
The "Other permanents exhibits" section is a bit muddled. Shouldn't the article structure move from general to specific, starting with this section which gives an overview of how many tanks/exhibits existed on opening? When did the nature faking begin? That needs more explanation too. Is it in the bay or in the aquarium? I'm aware of the thriving sea live in the oil rigs farther south, so was there something similar among the cannery pilings?
Looking forward to the "Research and conservation" section, it's nicely developed. I'm not sure, though, whether the shark exhibit should be part of research & conservation? I am vaguely aware of the research the aquarium scientists do in the bay and up and down the channel islands area to study the sharks, so maybe it can be tied in? If not, I'd suggest moving that section up with the "Temporary exhibitions".
I still believe this is borderline, but not quite there - I'm a little on the fence. Victoriaearle (tk) 17:08, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Ceoil

This article needs work. lead only:

Known for its regional focus on the marine habitats of Monterey Bay - "Known" - this seems to be a claim for notability. When you think about it "ts regional focus" narrows scope. I would reword this as primarily focused on.
also focus on sea otters - repeating words - we read "also" and "focus" again
published by the aquarium beginning in 1999 - "since"?
were not successful until a group of four marine biologists - why "a group of"
revisited the concept in the late-1970s - "plans" rather than "concept"
Monterey Bay Aquarium was built at the site of a defunct sardine cannery and has been recognized for its architectural achievements by the American Institute of Architects. - there is a non sequitur in this
Monterey Bay Aquarium receives around two million visitors each year. It led to the revitalization - "receives"/"led to" - strange change in tense
in film and television productions - documentary? Otherwise we are talking about self financed promos.
Theses are examples only. Ceoil (talk) 20:00, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Coord note

I was happy to see this nom left open for a considerable time in the hopes that following Victoria's review we might get quick resolution of outstanding issues but that hasn't occurred and given further concerns raised by Ceoil I think we still have a way to go before consensus to promote is achieved. I therefore plan to archive the review so further work can continue outside the FAC process; this could perhaps involve Victoria and Ceoil being pinged to check over improvements prior to another nomination here. Thanks/cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:50, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Closing note: This candidate has been archived, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 14:51, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.