Template:Did you know nominations/COEX Aquarium

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by PumpkinSky talk 01:24, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

COEX Aquarium

(

• Back to T:TDYK
• Article history

)

• ... that the COEX Aquarium in Gangnam district, Seoul, is one of South Korea's largest aquariums with over 40,000 creatures from over 650 species on display?

Created/expanded by Livitup (talk). Self nom at 07:27, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

• Long enough (just), new, hook fact referenced. One of the sections has a reference that doesn't state any of the facts given in that sentence (or the subsequent list), so that will have to be fixed up. As a side note (unrelated to DYK), the nominator original editor has created a one-sentence stub for this aquarium in many different languages. I've never seen that before and wonder what the point is of that. Schwede66 20:13, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

• Fixed reference - the information is actually combined from two sources, ref 2 includes most of the information, but omits the last stage of the tour, ref 4 has the walk-thru tunnel "near the end of the tour" and after all the other exhibits. About the length - 106 characters over, plus the short list which isn't included in the prose size. Finally, I'm the nom, but not the creator. I almost listed the original one sentence stub for CSD/AFD, but I decided to improve the article instead. You'd have to ask User:tsuchiya Hikaru why. He's made quite a few shortish/stubbish articles on en about different Korean buildings and districts. Livit⇑^Eh?/_What? 04:41, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

• Good to go then. Re the reference, I reviewed this version and ref 3 was the one at that point that didn't relate to the sentence or the list, but I see it's now fixed up. Schwede66 05:48, 5 December 2011 (UTC)