Wikipedia:Peer review/Georgia Aquarium/archive1

Georgia Aquarium

Well-sourced article that I've worked a lot on over the last several months; considering FAC and placing on peer review to see where it needs improvement as part of that process. AUTiger ʃ ^talk/_work 19:19, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It needs inline citations, generally in the form of Wikipedia:Footnotes. AndyZ 22:50, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Some suggestions: Sayeth 20:49, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The orginal article was contributed all at once by an anonymous editor. Google select phrases from this contribution and other large anon edits to check for plagarism.
- The article tips very close to pro-aquarium boosterism POV. There should at least be some mention of dissenting opinion. Criticism has been leveled at the aquarium on the following topics: 1) long-term viability of an aquarium, 2)Ethics of keeping baluga whales/whale sharks in captivity 3)proximity to the Chattanooga Aquarium. I personally disagree with these criticisms, but you might want to address them before some vandal does.
- Revise some POV and non-encyclopedic wording: "dramatically", "star", "close to home"
Consider adding more on the political process behind the creation of the aquarium, the controversy over what some have characterized as Bernie Marcus's take-it-or-leave-it approach, and the city's hopes of a broader boost for Atlanta. There should really be a detailed paragraph at least on each of the sections of the aquarium. You might also work a bit toward a more logical and ordered presentation of the topics if that's possible.--Pharos 12:44, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the feedback.

Footnotes appear to just be a proposed policy; as far as I can tell, the current reference section is generally acceptable.
The original article is not plaigarized, at least not from a source that is online and indexed by Google. I have cleaned up some of the encylopedic wording. I will try to find some criticism regarding the long-term viablity and closeness to Chattanooga, but as I recall, that was mostly about a city-driven aquarium prior to Marcus' donation of the aquarium as a private donor/funder. I'm loath to single the GA out for criticism on the belugas and whale sharks since that is something that applies generally to all aquaria (same sort of critics that oppose zoos and all animals in captivity) though a line or two and link to an article on that controversy is probably in order.
As to a 'take it or leave it approach', I also do not recall that being a major controversy or even critism of Marcus. Will work on expanding the exhibit descriptions and the city's hopes. I'm not sure what section order would be more logical that the current version which seems to lead with those things most important about an aquairum (collection, exhibits, etc) and then progresses to other interesting facts.

Thanks again. AUTiger ʃ ^talk/_work 03:40, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]