Template:Did you know nominations/Monterey Bay Aquarium

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. 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 Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:59, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

Monterey Bay Aquarium

(

• Back to T:TDYK
• Article history

)

A great white shark at the aquarium in 2006

• ... that Monterey Bay Aquarium is the only public aquarium that has successfully exhibited a great white shark (pictured) for more than 16 days? Source: "In 2004, it acquired a shark that became the first great white to survive in captivity for more than 16 days. In fact, it was on display for more than six months" from Vox (URL) + "and no one's done it since" (from video at 59 seconds). SF Chronicle reported it many times as they occurred (see footnotes here, here, here).
  • ALT1:... that Monterey Bay Aquarium was the first public aquarium to exhibit a great white shark (pictured) for more than 16 days?
  • ALT2:... that Monterey Bay Aquarium was the first public aquarium to exhibit a living kelp forest? Source: "The aquarium does have tanks, lots of them, including one nearly three stories high--the first to contain a living kelp forest" from LA Times (URL), and three others sourced at article (see footnote).
  • ALT3:... that Monterey Bay Aquarium pumps 2,000 gallons (7,600 liters) of bay water into its exhibits every minute? Source: "The water comes straight from the bay, about 2,000 gallons a minute, sucked in through one of two 16-inch intake pipes, then filtered and piped throughout the aquarium" from LA Times (URL).

• Comment: ALT1 is if the video quote in the first hook is too much of a stretch, but there were a few online articles that got passed around in 2016 discussing the same, like this Vice one.
• Comment: ALT2 and ALT3 are just other options to use without the picture, but I'm sure the shark ones are "hookier"?

Improved to Good Article status by Rhinopias (talk). Self-nominated at 15:40, 19 October 2017 (UTC).

Will review this. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:17, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

Need sleep before doing so, but a comment: get the 3 storeys to the kelp forest, and that image. I confess that the shark image is not great in stamp size, and I fear that animal lovers may object. The image of the sunfish is clearer than the shark, I'd think. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:05, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

Monterey Bay Aquarium's Kelp Forest exhibit

I agree the shark image isn't perfectly visible, but I do think it's at least recognizable. (It's difficult to find a CC picture of a shark they had on display.) If a kelp forest hook is chosen over a shark one so that an image can be included I'm all for it, but I don't know if fear of offending any "animal lovers" is an appropriate rejection, as no one should be offended by a beneficial animal-related endeavor led by experts. :} If a hook about the sunfish is desired, I could incorporate into the article an eye-popping weight of one of the aquarium's past sunfish, but currently it just mentions they display them. But here's a hook incorporating the height of the kelp forest:

ALT4:... that Monterey Bay Aquarium was the first public aquarium to exhibit a living kelp forest (pictured), and it's nearly three stories tall?

Is that decently visible? – Rhinopias (talk) 23:13, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

That image is good! I was there ;) - Will go read now. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:20, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

Substantial Good article on plenty of excellent sources, engagingly written and well illustrated! No copyvio obvious. The kelp forest image is licensed, and eye-catching even in small size. "Kelp" seems also to match better than a shark the line: "The aquarium is known for its regional focus on Monterey Bay and its display of marine life communities rather than individual species". - 5 of the (well-organized) refs in #38 and #39 are not used. Fix that and then go for FA, seriously ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:37, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

You are absolutely right about the hook. Thanks, Gerda Arendt! :} – Rhinopias (talk) 21:41, 20 October 2017 (UTC)