A fact from Save the Bay appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the Did you know column on 21 January 2012 (
check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Organizations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Organizations on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.OrganizationsWikipedia:WikiProject OrganizationsTemplate:WikiProject Organizationsorganization articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject California, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the
U.S. state of California on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CaliforniaWikipedia:WikiProject CaliforniaTemplate:WikiProject CaliforniaCalifornia articles
This article has been given a rating which conflicts with the
project-independent quality rating in the banner shell. Please resolve this conflict if possible.
This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Ecology, an effort to create, expand, organize, and improve
ecology-related articles.EcologyWikipedia:WikiProject EcologyTemplate:WikiProject EcologyEcology articles
This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the
importance scale.
Original extent of the bay?
How can a 2010 photo seemingly taken from an airplane window represent the "original extent of the bay?"
Cullen328Let's discuss it 07:28, 11 January 2012 (UTC)reply
It does not, a historical map states that. The image taken from a plane's caption reads "The bay today."
LuciferWildCat (
talk) 00:53, 20 January 2012 (UTC)reply
That's not how it was captioned when I made my comment on January 11, but the article is getting better.
Cullen328Let's discuss it 02:00, 20 January 2012 (UTC)reply
This article, though short, has a serious problem of violating
WP:NPOV. The header contains almost no useful information, but is happy to inform you that the organization has "achieved its namesake," whatever that means. The History and Today sections, meanwhile, merely list a few accomplishments of the organization in a manner which sounds like quotes from an organizational website. The article overall is also poorly written. If someone with a deeper knowledge of this organization and its accomplishments wants to solve these issues, that'd be fantastic.
50.203.124.114 (
talk) 18:55, 15 May 2018 (UTC)reply