Talk:Tennessee Aquarium

Tennessee Aquarium has been listed as one of the Sports and recreation good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
March 15, 2016	Good article nominee	Not listed
July 30, 2016	Good article nominee	Listed

Current status: Good article

Zoo

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Zoo, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics related to zoos, aquaria, and aviaries on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ZooWikipedia:WikiProject ZooTemplate:WikiProject ZooZoo articles

Tennessee Low‑importance

	Tennessee portal Tennessee Aquarium is within the scope of WikiProject Tennessee, an open collaborative effort to coordinate work for and sustain comprehensive coverage of Tennessee and related subjects in the Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, and even become a member. [Project Articles] • [Project Page] • [Project Talk] • [Assessment] • [Template Usage]TennesseeWikipedia:WikiProject TennesseeTemplate:WikiProject TennesseeTennessee articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

2011

The article's first reference, to the statement that "Its River Journey building is the largest freshwater aquarium in the world", is based on a news release from the aquarium itself. Many tourist businesses make similar claims. It would be preferable to have a statement from an outside source along with a date, as in "As of July 3, 2010, it's River Journey building..." Nightsmaiden (talk) 00:01, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Many sources list this aquarium as one of the top aquarium's in the nation. It should probably be added somewhere in the article. Also, a lot of this information is out of date, for example it does not mention much about the newest river otter exhibit. floydcaro (talk)

Conservation

The aquarium's numerous conservation efforts are not listed (or even mentioned) in this entire article. I believe adding a section about the aquarium's conservation attempts and triumph's will add a bit more structure and validity to this article as a whole. floydcaro (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 04:37, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

For a little more background information about the Tennessee Aquarium, I believe adding a section about how it came to Chattanooga would add more depth. For example, it was funded by the Lyndhurst Foundation and private funds of the Lupton family. Catdirk (talk) 16:16, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Tennessee Aquarium/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Id4abel (talk · contribs) 17:49, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Good Article review progress box

Criteria: 1a. prose () 1b. MoS () 2a. ref layout () 2b. cites WP:RS () 2c. no WP:OR () 2d. no WP:CV ()

3a. broadness () 3b. focus () 4. neutral () 5. stable () 6a. free or tagged images () 6b. pics relevant ()

Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked are unassessed

ToDo need a citation that covers the 1992 opening claim (probably already in extensive references and can likely just copy and paste) Abel (talk) 21:00, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ToDo need a citation that covers the 2005 opening claim (probably already in extensive references and can likely just copy and paste) Abel (talk) 21:00, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ToDo need a citation that covers the conservation activities on display text (probably already in extensive references and can likely just copy and paste) Abel (talk) 21:00, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Unresponsive nominator

This article needs little improvement to reach good article status so failing the review would be sad on a number of levels, however “If a nominator or other article editors are unresponsive and the article does not meet the criteria, then the nomination may be failed.” So while I understand that @BilCat:, @ZachofMS:, and @Floydcaro: have not touched the article recently, any assistance at all would prevent the review failing due to an unresponsive nominator.Abel (talk) 14:52, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Failure

With no response of any kind from anyone, I must fail the nomination. Abel (talk) 14:34, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much for taking the time to review the article, Abel-- unfortunately, I wasn't able to check in while you were doing so. I will fix the issues you indicated, then resubmit. Womump (talk) 05:11, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Tennessee Aquarium/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Acalycine (talk · contribs) 09:58, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	Great prose.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	Good references, formatted well.
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).
	2c. it contains no original research.
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
	7. Overall assessment.	Detailed and broad article. Definite pass. Well done.

Lemur Forest

So which structure is the Lemur Forest in? 2601:204:C900:9F63:9A1:F99E:6CFB:DB1A (talk) 00:16, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]