Talk:Copano Bay

Copano Bay 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.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
September 9, 2010	Good article nominee	Not listed
October 5, 2010	Good article nominee	Listed

A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on July 8, 2010.

The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that the remains of the ghost town of Copano, Texas, are threatened with falling into Copano Bay?

Current status: Good article

Limnology and Oceanography Low‑importance

	Oceans portal This article is part of the WikiProject Limnology and Oceanography to improve Wikipedia's coverage of the inland waters and marine environments. The aim is to write neutral and well-referenced articles on limnology- or oceanography-related topics, as well as to ensure that limnology and oceanography articles are properly categorized. Read Wikipedia:Contributing FAQ and leave any messages at the project talk page.Limnology and OceanographyWikipedia:WikiProject Limnology and OceanographyTemplate:WikiProject Limnology and OceanographyLimnology and Oceanography
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

United States: Texas 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
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 Mid-importance).

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Copano Bay/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

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]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Copano Bay. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:02, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]