Talk:Copano Bay/GA2

GA Review

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

Reviewer: hamiltonstone (talk) 05:07, 8 October 2010 (UTC) The article appears neutral, stable, and generally well-written. Images appear to be in order. I have concerns about the breadth and depth of coverage and (indirectly) about the extensive reliance on the Handbook of Texas Online (though it might be debatable whether this is a GA issue). The article is very brief. It appears however to have overlooked what would seem to be potential key sources, particularly when one considers that the main source used is, strictly speaking, a tertiary rather than secondary source. Tertiary sources are admissable - I do not contend to the contrary - but it does not appear as though they are being used to the lesser extent (per WP:PRIMARY). My very cursory examination suggests that sources not cited could be key to this article, including:[reply]

The book of Texas bays
Official Guide to Texas State Parks and Historic Sites
Building the Lone Star: an illustrated guide to historic sites
And, I would have thought, a secondary source re American Indian settlement / history.
There also appear to be listed by the Handbook Online some secondary sources that might also be consulted.

In these circumstances, I'm not convinced the article meets WIAGA criterion 3.

Other points:

Even given the very short nature of the article, the lead appears too short.
Clumsy sentence that is hard to follow: "Further southwest, past the mouth of Mission Bay, Shellbank Reef and Mullens Bayou, Bayside stretches along the coast to the mouth of the Aransas River." Why identify the location of something (Bayside) as being past three different things? Just pick the last one...? hamiltonstone (talk) 05:07, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK, responding to William Saturn. Some of what I suggested got done. The rest I had to do myself. In about 30 minutes, armed with nothing more than Google Books, I added a bunch of stuff that you didn't seem to want to go looking for. If you ask me, this sort of thing is why there shouldn't be Wikicups etc. Just generally, I wish you would take a more constructive approach to reviews. With the additions I've made, this is a pass. Please get Official Guide to Texas State Parks and Historic Sites out at a library or something and use it to improve this and other related articles you've worked on, which will also help reduce the reliance on tertiary sources. hamiltonstone (talk) 02:05, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My involvement here had nothing to do with a wikicup so don't make assumptions. I cannot devote my entire schedule to editing wikipedia. Perhaps I could have when I nominated this article, but not at this time. I appreciate your additions, but in no way were they essential to this article's quality. In no way were you obligated to make the edits. Scolding without any basis of understanding is not a constructive way to end a GA review.--William S. Saturn (talk) 03:40, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"My involvement here had nothing to do with a wikicup so don't make assumptions." That doesn't seem correct. For the record. hamiltonstone (talk) 22:45, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not argue with me about things in my personal life. The wikicup had nothing to do with the amount of attention paid to this review.--William S. Saturn (talk) 23:12, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]