Template:Did you know nominations/Offshore aquaculture

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 Allen3 ^talk 10:14, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Offshore aquaculture

(

)

... that offshore aquaculture is an environmentally friendly method of farming fish where fish cages (pictured) are moved offshore into deeper water?

Created/expanded by Amadis38 (talk). Nominated by Epipelagic (talk) at 10:47, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Meets all criteria, nice job!--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 23:39, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Returning to noms page from prep. Hook fact is stated in the article but is not supported by citations there and is arguably not true. (It's a hope or an opinion, but there are cited sources that dispute it.) --Orlady (talk) 13:48, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
ALT 1: ... that in offshore aquaculture, fish cages (pictured) are moved to deeper waters where they are less likely to pollute the seafloor or conflict with inshore users? --Epipelagic (talk) 11:50, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
ALT 2: ... that in offshore aquaculture, fish cages (pictured) are moved to deeper and less sheltered waters where they are less likely to pollute the seafloor? --Epipelagic (talk) 11:50, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

I"ve spent some time off-and-on reading the sources and the article, but have not documented it until now. I found some citation support for the idea that some people think that offshore aquaculture is less likely to pollute water (it appears to me that this is still more of an opinion than a fact), but no indication that seafloor pollution (a topic mentioned in both ALT hooks) has been a focus of concern (seafloor physical damage does show up as a concern for some forms of aquaculture). As for user conflicts, the article does not clearly identify the source for the idea that there are less conflicts with inshore users, but I searched ref name "ten" (the reference cited at the end of a paragraph that mentions this topic) for the word "conflict" and I found that it discusses this topic. The source states "It is also asserted by proponents that development of open ocean sites would have the advantages of avoiding inshore user conflicts and reducing environmental impacts." However, the Wikipedia article states as fact that the technology "avoids the user conflicts that often occur in inshore areas" -- that is not what the source says. Furthermore, elsewhere that same source discusses the potential for offshore user conflicts: "Open ocean aquaculture development also has the potential to interfere with maritime transportation and commercial fisheries, with potential conflicts over access and transit rights." I have formed the distinct impression that the creator of the article is favorably impressed with this technology and has emphasized positive information in the article, while overlooking or omitting much of the negative information.

I could imagine an interesting hook about the possibility of roaming fish cages, but when I checked on sourcing for that topic, I discovered that this section of the article is a victim of too-close paraphrasing:

Source (ref name "one"): The next generation technology also includes a gigantic cage that will travel hundreds of miles offshore and roam the seas instead of remaining fixed to a buoy. Juvenile tuna placed in roaming cages in Mexico could conceivably arrive in Japan ready for market sales several months later. Roaming cage technology is still in the conceptual stage and will likely meet difficult legal and regulatory constraints as it develops for commercial use.
Article: Roaming cages are the next generation technology for offshore aquaculture. These enormous mobile cages will roam the seas, powered by thrusters, taking advantage of ocean currents. Juvenile tuna placed in such mobile cages in Mexico could reach Japan a few months later, ready for the market. However mobile cage technology is at a conceptual stage, and legal and regulatory issues need clarifying before it is ready for commercial use. --Orlady (talk) 03:53, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

I've expanded and partially rewritten the article in a way I hope addresses these issues. Inshore user conflicts don't happen because the farms are no longer inshore. --Epipelagic (talk) 00:21, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Paraphrasing check 1, 2 (many false positives that are the names of documents) and 3 look fine. Perhaps as a hook: ALT3: ... that if roaming cages were to be used in offshore aquaculture, fish could mature during their trip to the market? or ALT4: ... that if roaming cages were to be used in offshore aquaculture, fish could mature during their trip from Mexico to Japan? Crisco 1492 (talk) 16:07, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm fine with ALT4, or with...

ALT5: ... that if roaming cages are used in offshore aquaculture, juvenile tuna starting out from Mexico could mature and be ready to market by the time they got to Japan? --Epipelagic (talk) 00:20, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

ALT5 is good too. ALT4 or ALT5 are fine. Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:53, 26 October 2011 (UTC)