Talk:McKinney Roughs Nature Park

McKinney Roughs Nature Park has been listed as one of the Geography and places good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Review: September 4, 2024. (Reviewed version).

United States: Texas / Austin Low‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	Texas portal This article is supported by WikiProject Texas (assessed as High-importance).
	Texas portal This article is supported by WikiProject Texas - Austin (assessed as Mid-importance).

Protected areas Low‑importance

	This article is part of WikiProject Protected areas, a WikiProject related to national parks and other protected natural or ecological areas worldwide.Protected areasWikipedia:WikiProject Protected areasTemplate:WikiProject Protected areasProtected areas articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

A fact from McKinney Roughs Nature Park appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 30 January 2024 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:

Did you know... that McKinney Roughs Nature Park has an unusual convergence of four distinct ecosystems?

A record of the entry may be seen at Wikipedia:Recent additions/2024/January. The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/McKinney Roughs Nature Park.

Wikipedia

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by DirtyHarry991 talk 00:29, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(

Comment or view
Article history

)

... that McKinney Roughs Nature Park houses an archaeological site dating back to the Archaic Period, approximately 2,100 years ago? Source: "McKinney Roughs is a remarkably well-preserved site that was frequented by prehistoric campers in the final stages of the Archaic period. On at least three occasions from about 2100 to 850 years ago, prehistoric peoples camped on the knoll for brief periods of time while hunting and gathering mussels from the river, deer from the forest edge, and a variety of wild plants." (Texas Beyond History)
ALT2 ... that McKinney Roughs Nature Park has an unusual convergence of four distinct ecosystems? Source: "McKinney Roughs, an 1,100-acre nature park sitting on the Lower Colorado River, is home to four distinct ecosystems and hundreds of diverse plant and animal species." ... "Characteristics of four Texas regions -- Post Oak Savannah, Blackland Prairie, East Texas Piney Woods, and Central Texas Plateau -- converge to create an unusual blend of natural resources at McKinney Roughs Nature Park." (Statesman) (LCRA)
ALT3 ... that McKinney Roughs Nature Park and the broader Lost Pines forest provide habitat for over 250 bird species? "Birding enthusiasts are invited to join the fourth annual Lost Pines Christmas Bird Count at McKinney Roughs Nature Park and have the chance to spot dozens of species of birds ranging from the green kingfisher to the American bald eagle ... The Lost Pines area is prime bird habitat, with about 250 of the more than 630 species of birds seen across Texas making their homes in the Lost Pines region. (Statesman)
ALT4 ... that pre-historic artifacts found at McKinney Roughs Nature Park were uniquely preserved due to flood sediments? Source: "The archeological site developed under relatively rare circumstances: materials left behind by these small prehistoric groups were quickly covered by fine flood sediments that sealed and preserved the site much as it was when the occupants walked away for the last time." (Texas Beyond History)
- Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/King Manor

Created by Morogris (talk). Self-nominated at 18:04, 31 December 2023 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/McKinney Roughs Nature Park; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.[reply]

Detailed interesting article, on plenty of fine sources, no copyvio obvious. I like ALT3 best, for the birds, but ALT2 and ALT4 are also fine. ALT4 is more interesting than the original, I think. - A few points for the article:

I think that the map in the infobox shows detail at the town level, while a reader may not even have understood that it is in Texas.
I'd replace the See also section by linking to these two things further up.
I think the details about what the bunkhouse offers are not needed.
I think the list of trails is too much of a good thing.
I'd love images!!

I think the article has GA potential. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:07, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Gerda Arendt: Thank you for the thorough review! I've done several of your suggestions. I'm not an expert with maps but I did request one from our map creators here several weeks ago. I'll see how I can integrate the See also articles into the text should I nominate this for GA. Thank you! Morogris (✉ • ✎) 16:02, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

Passed. Recon rabbit 00:46, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

This review is transcluded from Talk:McKinney Roughs Nature Park/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: Morogris (talk · contribs) 01:32, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: Reconrabbit (talk · contribs) 20:18, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This looks like a well-constructed article from the ground up.

Prose

I have reviewed the article and find no grammatical or style issues with the text as written. Great work! Y

Broadness and Focus

As mentioned in the DYK, the table of trails is a little unusual but there's no need for it to be altered or removed within the scope of this review. Y
Covers all aspects of the nature park without glaring omissions. Y
The Earth Day celebrations seem to be an undue detail

I've condensed it now. Let me know what you think. Morogris (✉ • ✎) 04:40, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good to me! Recon rabbit 16:45, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

References

Reference layout is appropriate. However, ABRCP 2006 is not cited in the text but it is present in the bibliography.

Done Nice find. I thought I had used it b/c I remember reading it, but I've moved it to Further Reading. Morogris (✉ • ✎) 04:40, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Checking sources

Based on this revision:

[1] Y
[4] Y
[9] Y though this could be construed as close paraphrasing? uncertain since there are only so many ways to say this Cynthia Houston, a cousin of Sam Houston, had eight children.

@Reconrabbit: I made a new update to remove close paraphrasing. Let me know! Morogris (✉ • ✎) 21:15, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

[16] Y
[18] Y
[21] Y (Note: Source is a forest advocacy group, but connected statements are uncontroversial facts.)
[30] Y (Can only see a brief preview on Google Books, but the supported data is anticipated to be there based on the snippet and entries on other pages.)
[41] Y This source conflicts (?) with the text and 40, stating that rather than being the longest dual zip line in Texas, it's the only one in the state. Obviously both could be true but the latter should take precedence, plus 40 is more of a marketing/tourism website than a useful RS.

@Reconrabbit: I've deleted that entire part. Good catch. I tried finding if there were other mentions of it being the "largest" but didn't find it. I kept Source 40 since Visit Bastrop is a marketing department within the City of Bastrop (which could qualify as RS) but removed the promo language.

[53] Y ~~Primary source - usable for listing of regulatory information, but I don't see where it makes mention of the rental facilities (information contained in 40).~~
- For Source 53, I used this information from page 4: "The natural beauty of McKinney Roughs Nature Park makes it ideal for tourism, corporat events and team-building activities, overnight accommodations, and unique experiences." In Source 40, it mentions this: "Other park amenities include various rental facilities, suitable for group sizes large and small, ideal for weddings, school groups and other private events. The park also offers on-site overnight accommodations, which includes dormitories that sleep up to 122 and a hostel that sleeps up to 10."
  - I see. I missed that in source 53 somehow. That qualifies as various other private gatherings.
[54][55] Y
[59] Y
[62] Y though I would personally reuse 7 for this statement.
[71] Y
[74] Y

Copyright

Image licenses appropriate. Y
Nothing noted as extensively copied from the sources used. Some false-positives appear due to the long names of some amenities ("Hyatt Regency Lost Pines Resort and Spa", etc.). Y

Neutrality

A very stringent pass on this article could construe some of the descriptions of the amenities as promotional ("Family-friendly activities", "complete with a grill and electricity") but otherwise a fair description of the region. Maybe I'm too sensitive to marketing copy.

Done Great suggestion. I removed all those promo-sounding descriptions. Morogris (✉ • ✎) 04:40, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No edit wars on this article or content disputes. You've got a 98.5% authorship on this page. Y

Images

Nice photos. All are relevant to the passages they are presented in line with. All have appropriate licenses for use and attribution. Y

Good Article review progress box

Criteria: 1a. prose () 1b. MoS () 2a. ref layout () 2b. cites WP:RS () 2c. no WP:OR () 2d. no WP:CV ()

3a. broadness () 3b. focus () 4. neutral () 5. stable () 6a. free or tagged images () 6b. pics relevant ()

Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked are unassessed

@Reconrabbit: Thank you for your review. I've responded to your comments and also made some changes to the article. Let me know if you have any questions. Much appreciated, Morogris (✉ • ✎) 04:40, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Morogris: I believe I've gone through more thoroughly now. I await your response for the few things remaining, and apologize for apathy on my end over the weekend. Recon rabbit 16:07, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.