# Talk:Monterey Bay Aquarium

nice bit there on the undersea welling...forgot about that--dgd
Wow...... I've been here! Btw, is there a "place wiki"?
Can we get a logo for the aquarium? Mazin07

The Georgia Aquarium article has been submitted for peer review. Please contribute any feedback you may have at Wikipedia:Peer review/Georgia Aquarium/archive1. Thanks. AUTiger ʃ talk/work 19:24, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Here is a free-use photo of the Outer Bay exhibit: http://flickr.com/photos/9859070@N07/1234380620/
Enigma3542002 09:49, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Both this entry and the "Okinawa Aquarium" claim to be the second largest in the world...
Ilcmuchas (talk) 18:02, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

This is a matter of taste so I am soliciting other editors' opinions. Infoboxes are fine, but infoboxes for visual subjects (like a display aquarium) or painting, or a person, usually contain a large photo of the subject. See (for example) any chemical element infobox (copper,gold, lithium).  The problem here is that we are left with nothing but a logo. So this is a case of "infoboxitis"-- use of an infobox up front when something else will serve better. Yes, the images used up front in this article are also in the gallery, but if they are considered redundant, remove the duplicates from the gallery!  N.B. I am not a promoter for the MBA and have absolutely no association with it. I hope anybody who does, will stay out of this discussion and editing (see WP:COI). SBHarris 18:10, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Is your only objection to not having the infobox at the standard position at the top of the page is only because it has the logo and not a picture of the aquarium? Well, the current code of {{Infobox zoo}} enables you to have both a logo and an image. And you can change the sizes so the image is significantly more prominent than the logo. Cheers. Zzyzx11 (talk) 02:43, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
This works well and looks nice!  Thanks. SBHarris 04:37, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Please consider helping to improve not only this article but all the articles under WikiProject Zoos WP:ZOO Scope. We are in desperate need of members. ZooPro 08:07, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

According to several sources, Star Trek IV was filmed in Monterrey. The Aquarium doesn't have any Humpback Whales on display now, not even any other large marine mammals, except for otters. Does somebody know whether they had whales on display earlier? --PaterMcFly talk contribs 21:04, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

They've never had anything but otters. No captive porposes, let alone whales. That's only in STAR TREK: The Search for Political Correctness. Which is set in San Francisco and Monterrey and all about a female professional who isn't susceptable to Kirk, and powered by the idea of saving the whales to save the Earth from destruction. Blechh.  Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day. Teach him how to fish and you feed him for life. Direct him to Wikipedia and he'll find a complete list of all mentions of "fishing" in The Simpsons. (-- K. Martin). So true. SBHarris 21:29, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
The question was not whether the Film was correct, but whether the information was correct, that the Film has been taken in Monterrey. As they don't have whales, that seems to be at least partially wrong, then. --PaterMcFly talk contribs 16:27, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
The article states "The Aquarium appeared in the 1986 film Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home, where it appeared as the Cetacean Institute in Sausalito. The main aquarium was overlaid with special effects to appear to be the tank home of two humpback whales." This statement is true. The reference used in the WP Star Trek IV article is not easily accessible, but I found this pretty quickly by googling "Humpback to the Future" (the name of the cited article). Then I dug out my old VHS, and VHS machine (yes, I know that dates me), and yes, it is the Monterey Bay aquarium on film -- they show almost the same angle as this article does in the infobox, though the tide is higher. I am going to add this citation. If someone finds a better source, feel free to add or replace. Don Lammers (talk) 18:55, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
Thanks, that's a helpful statement. I'm not going to dig trough history, but I think that sentence spelled differently once. Or at least it did so in other languages, which might have confused me. --PaterMcFly talk contribs 19:38, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

This article would benefit from more citations from secondary sources. While there are a few references from sources other than the aquarium, most come directly from it. Secondary sources would help to round out the article. The Monterey County Herald would probably be a good place to start. --GentlemanGhost (converse) 00:50, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Gallery is tagged, I do not see a talk page note on why? 
This section contains a gallery of images. Galleries containing indiscriminate images of the article subject are discouraged; please improve or remove the section accordingly, moving freely licensed images to Wikimedia Commons if not already hosted there. (June 2013)
That did someone in June of 2013 not like?  The dup picture was removed, was that it?
Telecine Guy 23:43, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Monterey Bay Aquarium/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
I'll take this on. Reviewer: Chiswick Chap (talk · contribs) 15:00, 17 October 2017 (UTC)


### Minor comments
"The aquarium has been called "a definite leader"[5] by its accrediting organization, the Association of Zoos and Aquariums, having been" - suggest "Aquariums. It has been ..."
 Done
"has also been granted multiple awards by the media and the travel industry; Parents ..." - suggest "has won multiple media and travel industry awards. Parents ..."
 Done
" by visitation." - suggest "by number of visits."
 Done
Does "by number of visitors" sound less awkward at all? – Rhinopias (talk) 05:12, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
Lead image caption "Main entrance to the aquarium in 2016" - suggest we drop "to the aquarium".
 Done
"The first of which, titled "Mexico's Secret Sea"," - suggest "The first of these, ..."
 Done
"Prior to the first white shark's more than six month stay—totaling 198 days—at the aquarium before being released, the longest length of time a white shark survived in an aquarium was 16 days." could perhaps be phrased to flow more easily.
 Semi-done. Changed to "Prior to the display of the first white shark for six months before its release, the longest length of time that a white shark survived in an aquarium was 16 days." Alternatively, that line can be cut as the information is present in the section that talks about the white sharks in more detail (which is linked in the preceding sentence) and something more general could be added? e.g. Six great white sharks were displayed in the Open Sea exhibit between 2004–2011, an effort contested by some but generally described as having a positive scientific and educational impact. The aquarium described the second white shark on exhibit as "a powerful emissary for ocean conservation."(Squatriglia 2007)
It almost doesn't seem relevant to me to have any of the above in the section specifically about the exhibit the sharks were in, but it seems to be what the aquarium is most known for so maybe a quick summary of the more detailed section is worth mentioning in the exhibit's section? – Rhinopias (talk) 00:36, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
I'm happy with it either way. You have certainly covered "the main points" which is what is required. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:59, 18 October 2017 (UTC)


### Images
All are well-chosen and licensed on Commons.
I thought I should mention that I searched extensively through Commons and Flickr to find usable, high-quality images in place of my own that are currently in the article. Always open to alternatives. – Rhinopias (talk) 00:50, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
Yes, diversity of sources is desirable, but not a GA criterion. It's fine to use your own (excellent) images as long as they don't convey the impression of advertising, which these do not. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:01, 18 October 2017 (UTC)


### External links
Generally we only have one link per website, i.e. if there's an Official website then we normally don't also have webcam links from the same place.
 Done. Is the blog link appropriate? It's run by the aquarium, but I think the writers are sometimes outsiders. – Rhinopias (talk) 00:40, 18 October 2017 (UTC)


### References
#68 IS IN BLOCK CAPITALS for some reason. Best fixed.
 Done. My bad… meant to fix this earlier but got sidetracked. – Rhinopias (talk) 00:43, 18 October 2017 (UTC)


### Summary
This elegantly-constructed and carefully-cited article is easily up to the required standard. I have made only some minor stylistic suggestions which I hope will be useful. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:41, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
Thanks, Chiswick Chap! This is my first time really writing in encyclopedic style, so if anything is questionably non-neutral do point it out. – Rhinopias (talk) 02:02, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
Also, I was unsure about where to nominate this article. Regardless of this particular nomination, comments would be appreciated at WT:GA. I'd be bold myself but I myself am not sure which option (or one not listed) would be appropriate. – Rhinopias (talk) 02:21, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
Many thanks. WT:GA is only for problems where the reviewer needs to seek help. I've no idea why you'd want "comments" there: this page is where people will come, if at all, and of course you can write on your own user page(s). Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:35, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
@Chiswick Chap: sorry for the vague and mysterious use of linking, but I meant to say that I brought up a discussion on the placement of this article and other public aquariums/zoos at the talk for the list of good articles here, because I was confused about which topic to use to nominate this article. – Rhinopias (talk) 16:35, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
Well, we're all done here. Good work! I hope you will do many more such articles, and will consider taking the time to review one or two articles by other people at GAN. All the best, Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:03, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks! – Rhinopias (talk) 16:35, 18 October 2017 (UTC)