Talk:McKinney Roughs Nature Park/GA1

GA Review

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.

---

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

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

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

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)

Looks good to me! Reconrabbit 16:45, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

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)

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)

• [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)

• 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)

@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. Reconrabbit 16:07, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

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.