Talk:Copano Bay/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Rmrfstar (talk) 13:09, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I'm sad to say that I have to fail this article's GA nomination because of a lack of reliable sources it exhibits. The article's sources are too heavily dependent on self-published web sources and the tertiary source of the Handbook of Texas Online. In some cases this is excusable, but in this case, it encourages a cursory treatment of the subject. Much more information can be given, and this information is only going to be found in more substantive, secondary sources. I'd highly recommend that the author(s) look at the sources which the Handbook cites, and read those directly. In addition, the writing is sometimes rather stilted, e.g. by excessive use of commas. I've tried to fix that where I could, but the prose still needs further work.-- Rmrfstar (talk) 13:05, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

One self published web source is used. Handbook of Texas Online is a highly reliable source.--William S. Saturn (talk) 18:57, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Handbook is tertiary source and therefore not to be relied upon heavily for citing facts. I'm not saying that the information therein is not true. I'm saying that Wikipedia articles should use secondary sources whenever possible (as it is in this case), as is policy (and for good reason). Your other sources are:

A history of the town of Corpus Chrisi from a local newspaper.
A map. (Using this actually constitutes original research, as it is a primary source.)
An article found on the web about fly fishing.
A webpage from a scientific research project with two paragraphs of general info.
Two good, but very narrow articles from a local publication.
A wildlife dpt. page listing shrimp regulations: OK but also very narrow.

Looking very carefully, I simply cannot see how this article is at all reliably sourced. Certainly I could never pass it with the writing reverted to the way it was before my copyedit. -- Rmrfstar (talk) 20:13, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Removing sources is not a copyedit. Please read WP:PRIMARY and learn what constitutes a reliable source. This article is sourced well.--William S. Saturn (talk) 21:27, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't remove any sources from Copano Bay. Or at least, I didn't mean to do so. I just looked at the history (twice) and didn't see anything; I don't know what you're talking about.

According to WP:PRIMARY, "Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources." It's secondary, then tertiary; not the other way around. But even if the Handbook were secondary, I'd still say you were over-relying on a single source. -- Rmrfstar (talk) 21:59, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please read the entire section, and see how primary sources can be properly used. There is no need to insistently defend this poor review. Please see Wikipedia:Good article criteria for the proper GA criteria.--William S. Saturn (talk) 22:23, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]