Wikipedia:Featured and good topic candidates/Major estuaries of Texas/archive1
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.
Major estuaries of Texas edit
The U.S. state of Texas has a series of seven major estuaries along its coast on the Gulf of Mexico, most of them bounded by the Texas barrier islands. The estuaries are sometimes named for their chief contributing rivers, and they are also sometimes referred to by the names of their respective primary or central bays. These water bodies include some of the largest and most ecologically productive coastal estuaries in the United States and contribute significantly to the ecological and economic resources of Texas.
8 articles
- Contributor(s): Bryan Rutherford
This is a series of articles about the seven major estuaries on the Texas coast, together with an overview article. All are now at GA quality, so I am nominating them as a Good Topic. All are found in Category:Estuaries of Texas and linked together by the navbox Template:Estuaries of Texas. Thanks for your consideration! -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 21:19, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
- Thanks for this excellent topic! I am a little confused about the organization, since the sections of the main article are for the estuaries, but the subarticles are for specific bays within the estuary. For example the header of Colorado–Lavaca Estuary has Matagorda Bay as the main article, though that estuary system also includes GAs Carancahua Bay and Lavaca Bay and a couple non-GAs. Then East Matagorda Bay ("part of the Matagorda Bay system") is listed as a separate minor estuary. With that, I think Estuaries of Texas should go into some more detail about the estuaries in general. It's made up of summaries of each of the individual articles but there's nothing really unifying about it other than being in Texas. What can be said about the common geology and ecosystem of this chain of estuaries, for example? Very interesting to read about! Reywas92Talk 19:46, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
- It's common to refer to each estuary system by the name of its main body of water, e.g. referring to the entire Colorado–Lavaca Estuary system as "Matagorda Bay", as noted at the end of the first lead paragraph in the overview article; these articles are about the entire systems, not just the central elements, and I've added to the blurb to try to make this more clear. This proposal is organized as an "overview topic", as described here, meaning that all the smaller sub-bays and inlets are briefly covered within the articles on the seven major estuaries. East Matagorda Bay is described as a separate minor estuary by the state, as the cited sources confirm, because it's hydrologically separated from Matagorda Bay proper. The scope I'm proposing covers the articles on the seven major estuaries, each of which is larger and more complicated than all of the minor ones combined; the minor estuaries are covered at a depth suitable to their importance in the overview article. As for a unifying overview section in the main article, it had one... and the GA reviewer ordered that it be removed. I'll consider whether it would be appropriate to just put it back in now that the review is concluded. -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 19:57, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
- Okay that makes sense on the naming then! Yes, that would be good to include that in the main article. While it works well as an overview topic, it's important to have content tying them all together beyond being in the same state. Reywas92Talk 23:46, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
- I've added a new overview paragraph to the headline article giving some geological history and going into greater detail about the ecological and economic significance of the estuaries to Texas. -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 21:38, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
- Okay that makes sense on the naming then! Yes, that would be good to include that in the main article. While it works well as an overview topic, it's important to have content tying them all together beyond being in the same state. Reywas92Talk 23:46, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
- It's common to refer to each estuary system by the name of its main body of water, e.g. referring to the entire Colorado–Lavaca Estuary system as "Matagorda Bay", as noted at the end of the first lead paragraph in the overview article; these articles are about the entire systems, not just the central elements, and I've added to the blurb to try to make this more clear. This proposal is organized as an "overview topic", as described here, meaning that all the smaller sub-bays and inlets are briefly covered within the articles on the seven major estuaries. East Matagorda Bay is described as a separate minor estuary by the state, as the cited sources confirm, because it's hydrologically separated from Matagorda Bay proper. The scope I'm proposing covers the articles on the seven major estuaries, each of which is larger and more complicated than all of the minor ones combined; the minor estuaries are covered at a depth suitable to their importance in the overview article. As for a unifying overview section in the main article, it had one... and the GA reviewer ordered that it be removed. I'll consider whether it would be appropriate to just put it back in now that the review is concluded. -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 19:57, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
OpposeWithout East Matagorda Bay and Christmas Bay (Texas) the topic "Estuaries of Texas" is incomplete. (Minor estuaries are still estuaries.) Armbrust The Homunculus 18:52, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
- I'm proposing that the scope of the topic be the major estuaries, each of which is of greater size and ecological and economic importance than all of the minor ones combined. -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 19:07, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
- Support
Comments' With the discussion of major/minor etc. I think this nomination may need to be renamed and have the lead updated to make the topic scope clear, at the moment there seems to be some confusion. Not sure if a renaming and change to scope would require a resubmit or what? Note - if this was clearly "Major Estuaries" I could easily support the nomination. MPJ-DK (talk) 21:46, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
- Hrm. Yeah, upon reflection, I guess this proposal probably needs one more article along the lines of "Minor estuaries of Texas" to meet the criteria for an overview topic of the estuaries of Texas. @Armbrust: Would rebuilding this as a "Major estuaries of Texas" topic resolve your concerns? -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 23:49, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
- Yeah, that’s fine with me. Armbrust The Homunculus 23:52, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
- @Armbrust and MPJ-DK: Okay, sorry to keep pinging you, but I've updated the proposal to try to make the reduced scope clear. What do y'all think? -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 00:02, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
- Yup that'll do it for me, I've updated my comment to Support. MPJ-DK (talk) 00:46, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
- Support after narrowing the scope of the topic. Armbrust The Homunculus 07:42, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
- @Armbrust and MPJ-DK: Okay, sorry to keep pinging you, but I've updated the proposal to try to make the reduced scope clear. What do y'all think? -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 00:02, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
- Yeah, that’s fine with me. Armbrust The Homunculus 23:52, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
- Hrm. Yeah, upon reflection, I guess this proposal probably needs one more article along the lines of "Minor estuaries of Texas" to meet the criteria for an overview topic of the estuaries of Texas. @Armbrust: Would rebuilding this as a "Major estuaries of Texas" topic resolve your concerns? -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 23:49, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
- Consensus to promote to Good Topic. Regards Spy-cicle💥 Talk? 19:43, 24 May 2020 (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.