Jump to content

Talk:Bacliff, Texas

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Good articleBacliff, Texas 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
DateProcessResult
January 16, 2009Good article nomineeListed

Not in List of Cities

[edit]

This article was not included in List of Cities in Texas, so I added it there. Someone from the Texas Wikiproject might want to check on other cities that may be omitted from the list.UrsaLinguaBWD (talk) 20:35, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

[edit]
This review is transcluded from Talk:Bacliff, Texas/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
GA review (see here for criteria)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): b (MoS):
    • I would expect an article of this length to have 2–3 paragraphs, rather than two sentences.
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
    • The "Demographics" section has several paragraphs with no references.
    • A link to the Houston Press article would probably be a good thing, too.
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars etc.:
  6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:
    It's a nice, well-written article. If the referencing in the "Demographics" section can be straightened out and the lead section beefed up, I see no problem with this article passing. But for now, I'm placing it on hold for seven days. — Bellhalla (talk) 13:39, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This article should not have passed GA. It is too short, and does not meet the standards of comprehensiveness per WP:WIAGA. The lead section is too short, and doesn't adequately summarize the article. There are many section missing (e.g. government, culture, transportation). Other sections should be drastically reorganized and rewritten. Move 'cityscape' into the 'geography' section, which is WAY to short for GA-quality. 'Crime' better fits as a subsection under demographics. 'Workforce' needs to be completely overhauled and changed to an 'economy' section. All it is right now is spitting out some rather bland statistics.

It might help to review WP:LEAD for tips on writing a good lead section, as well as WP:USCITY for guidelines on the structure and format of a US city article. For now, I am delisting this and relisting at WP:GAN as on hold. Dr. Cash (talk) 21:59, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can you provide specific guidelines at WP:WIAGA that this article does not meet? I can't find a "comprehensiveness" standard there, not do I find any sanction of or requirement that it must meet WP:USCITY guidelines. (If one needs to be a member of a specific WikiProject in order to know these 'hidden' guidelines, then perhaps the WP:GAN page can specify that.) — Bellhalla (talk) 22:32, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
See criterion #3, "Broad in its coverage". There are too many short sections in the article to pass that criterion (e.g. 'geography and climate', 'economy', 'parks and recreation', not to mention the lead section. Part of said criterion also states, "it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail", and presently, the article's organization fails that as well -- several sections need to be combined and reorganized, as it appears to me right now that the article is mostly a collection of random facts and not consistently telling the story of this small community. Picking on the 'cityscape' section, for one, it starts out by going into median home prices, and doesn't really say much about the different neighborhoods and how they're organized and interrelated in this community. The use of some of the quotes in that section also seems to slant the article towards a particular point of view, violating WP:NPOV. The section really needs to be completely rewritten, and probably integrated into the 'geography' section anyways.
Granted, the population of the town is small, and some of the guidelines in WP:USCITY may not apply, but a reasonable attempt should still be made at filling in as much as possible, and I can't see that with this article quite yet. Dr. Cash (talk) 15:51, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strange, I thought we have determined that Wikiproject guidelines do not apply to the GA criteria. –Juliancolton Happy Holidays 17:56, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding quotes and NPOV, one of the points of the NPOV policy is "Assert facts, including facts about opinions—but do not assert the opinions themselves." - In which way do the quotes violate this? I tried to make it clear that these quotes were of opinions and viewpoints of different people in the community. What would be the best way to deal with the quotes? WhisperToMe (talk) 19:34, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Also:
1. There is a government section - However please keep in mind Bacliff is unincorporated, so aside from the volunteer fire department there is no local government. Everything is from the county. I am trying to figure out if there is a precinct or something from the county that represents Bacliff.
2. AFAIK there is nothing to say about the transportation - Bacliff has no public transport of any sort. Maybe there could be a section about the use and significance of freeways if there is info about that, but unless I find anything of the sort, there cannot be a transportation section.
3. As for culture, some stuff that I put in the Geography section could be placed in a culture section. I'm not sure, though.

WhisperToMe (talk) 03:32, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Couldn't you have simply suggested the lead be expanded slightly, rather than delisting it? –Juliancolton Happy Holidays 22:06, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
See above. I have already answered this question. There is more that this article needs than simply, "fixing up the lead." Dr. Cash (talk) 15:51, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

After a good copyedit, the article meets all GA criteria, and will be listed. Dr. Cash (talk) 17:55, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Houston Press

[edit]
  • Note: This was posted in the GA thread. I moved it here

There is no such person as John Nova Lomax of the Houston Press. A call to the Houston Press verified this. The reference to Crime in Bacliff Houston Press, does not exist. The link to The Houston Press is only another wiki page,with no reference to Bacliff Articles. I appears that this fictions person, John Nova Lomax,or what his other alias may be, has an axe to grind with Bacliff,tx. Sounds more like a personal view then a review of a city in texas. I suggest these bias reviews should be removed. It makes other Wiki page source data suspect. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jlfulcherjr (talk • contribs) 00:40, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • The Houston Press has multiple articles written by "John Nova Lomax." Whether John Nova Lomax is an actual person, or a nom de plume for one or more than one person working for the Houston Press does not matter (there are cases where a name is really a nom de plume for one or more than one person). The Houston Press published this story as an edited, reviewed newspaper journalism story, and the publication has a record for fact checking in compliance with Wikipedia:Verifiability, and so it is admissible for use in Wikipedia articles.
  • There currently are other Bacliff-related articles being cited by this article, such as multiple articles by the Houston Chronicle. However the Houston Press is the only publication so far to talk about specific aspects of Bacliff, but it's perfectly acceptable to do that. Different sources talk about different aspects.
  • I started a thread about the Houston Press article at Wikipedia:RS_noticeboard#Identifying_.22opinion_pieces.22:_Bacliff.2C_Texas and the only respondant agrees that the Houston Press article is a standard published article and not an editorial.

WhisperToMe (talk) 21:47, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Houston Press reply #2

[edit]

This is a reply to User:Bayshorebabydoll at User_talk:WhisperToMe#Bacliff.2C_Texas. Before I begin, I must remind everyone that "truth" is not the criterion for inclusion on Wikipedia. It is verifiability - Has it been published in a verifiable source? The page Wikipedia:Verifiability gives more detail on this factor. This is crucial because it means Wikipedia is required to use facts and opinions in published sources such as newspapers, journal articles, and periodicals (with some information from primary sources) and cannot include things that are not published. As for the disputed content, please use this diff. This is the article by the Houston Press that is being disputed. Bayshorebabydoll (talk) 00:57, 23 April 2013 (UTC)Just because a source is verifiable does not mean it is a good source. The appropriateness of any source depends on the context. The best sources have a professional structure in place for checking or analyzing facts, legal issues, evidence, and arguments. The greater the degree of scrutiny given to these issues, the more reliable the source. Does the Houston Press have such a structure in place?[reply]

  • WP:V does say that the best sources have a reputation for fact checking, and often that means sources with editorial processes get chosen. The Houston Press has an editorial process, and it is owned by a larger company that specializes in alternative newspapers. WhisperToMe (talk) 05:01, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As for the reply: Yes, thank you for posting your rationale. That way I can better understand why you made certain edits.

  • 1. Your statement: "Gator Miller is not the publisher of the Seabreeze News." - The article was published in 2008. Today it is 2013. He may no longer be the publisher of the Seabreeze News. I have not found any published information that contradicts the statement that Gator Miller was the publisher of the Seabreeze News in 2008.
    • Your statement: "The existence of such a person is questionable at best" - On what basis is this statement made? Bayshorebabydoll (talk) 00:57, 23 April 2013 (UTC)I haven't been able to find any information on a "Gator" Miller in this area, until GRUrban posted the Gator Press Facebook page here[reply]
  • 2. Let's talk about opinions. See, Wikipedia does include opinions. It's okay to include opinions if they are attributed to certain individuals and not said like the truth. Also it's important to date things (say what year the statements were made), so in case things change, we are reminded that the statements/impressions were in 2008. Bayshorebabydoll (talk) 00:57, 23 April 2013 (UTC)The bulk of the article was based on this journalist's opinions. Why are his opinions being given undue weight?[reply]
    • “the overall impression of the town is that much of it is a white ghetto almost as hardcore as the roughest parts of Houston's South Park or Fifth Ward” - That is an opinion, and it is attributed to the journalist who said it, making it okay. Plus in case someone wants a comparison, the journalist's comparison to the Houston neighborhoods is a published one. I made it clear that he said in 2008.
    • “Lou's, the town's one true grocery store, is well stocked with booze, cigarettes and canned food, but offers little else other than wilted vegetables and whole aisles of all-but-bare shelves” - That is an opinion, and it is attributed to the journalist who said it, making it okay. As long as it's said that he said in 2008, that would be fine too (in case, say, Lou's changed their product selection years later, audiences are reminded that the statement is from 2008). Now, I said that he wrote the "impression" in 2008 but did not repeat the year. I hoped that readers understand that all of his statements dated from 2008.
  • You may wonder "what is important about the opinions of these journalists?" As per WP:V, verifiability is key, and so a statement a journalist makes in an investigative article is a "verifiable" opinion, while a post on a message board or a self-published blog is not a "verifiable" opinion.
  • 3. You said “For such a small town, Bacliff has an astounding number of bars. In fact, its ratio of taverns-to-citizens rivals those of many hard-drinking British seaside resorts” is factually incorrect. YP.com shows Bacliff has only 5 true bars" - Firstly you did the search in 2013. The statement was made in 2008. Maybe some of the bars have closed? And did YP.com count every bar in Bacliff? And assuming there were five bars in Bacliff in 2008... maybe the journalist thinks five bars in a town of 8,619 is a large number for a town of that size? See, the view that Bacliff "has an astounding number of bars" is also an opinion. I'm not sure which British towns the journalist compared Bacliff to, but it could be an interesting question for him. By the way, please don't try to make a new statement saying "Bacliff has hardly any bars" by using YP.com because that would be Wikipedia:Original research. To do that, you would need a new newspaper article that explicitly says "Bacliff now has hardly any bars." Likewise saying "YP.com lists 9 churches in Bacliff." without an explicit newspaper article saying so would be Original research.Bayshorebabydoll (talk) 00:57, 23 April 2013 (UTC)I have not made any claims in the article based on original research, so I'll ask that you not accuse me of doing so or planning on doing so[reply]
  • 4. About your statement: "The quotation - ["This is the only town I know that has churches next to bars that are next to gambling halls, and then repeat that all over town," says local resident Jack Nelson.] is factually incorrect." - Keep in mind it's presented as the testimony of a person in that town. He may have used hyperbole, but it doesn't mean we exclude the statement just because the man used hyperbole. As for your statement "A Google Maps search shows that not all of these listed exist, and of those that do, none of them are located next to bars." - While it is interesting that you did the research, trying to use it as the basis of a statement in the article would be inadmissible because it is Original research.Bayshorebabydoll (talk) 00:57, 23 April 2013 (UTC)I'm not using it as the basis of a statement in the article. I'm using it to show that the source article is not accurate.[reply]
  • 5. About your statement "According to Miller, September 11, storic day for Bacliff and San Leon. A town hall meeting was held in which the citizenry demanded local officials clean up the town – cannot find a record of this meeting" - Where are you doing your searches? Would this meeting be recorded with minutes?Bayshorebabydoll (talk) 00:57, 23 April 2013 (UTC)There should be some record of it. The Galveston County Daily News reports on these meetings[reply]
  • 6. About your statement "The statement – “Miller said that many people in the town, himself included, want to be allowed to drink, smoke weed and gamble with abandon, but they want the line drawn at crack and meth “– this is an opinion by one alleged resident of the area" - While it is not a flattering statement, it was published in a secondary source publication (the Houston Press) and therefore admissible. If somebody had said that on an internet message board, or a self-published blog or website, it wouldn't be admissible.

Thank you, WhisperToMe (talk) 02:27, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Bayshore, the usual practice on Wikipedia is to start a new line listing responses to the previous comments. Anyhow...
    • 1. Due weight is based on what is published by secondary sources. An investigative article adds weight to aspects brought up by the article. The more articles about x aspect, the more weight needed to be given. As Bacliff is a small community with little press attention it doesn't take much weight for an aspect to be admissible.
    • 2. It is okay to include opinions by the journalist, as long as they are attributed, and I had made sure they were.
    • 3. Babyshore, I understood that you didn't say you wanted to add the material. I just cautioned against king so just to be sure, But I did being up the issue of using the material to challenge HP on the notice OR board (please read that post). Again, it's 2013 but the HP info is from 2008, and as I said remember Bacliff is a town of 8,000 people... Quite small.
    • 4. About Galveston County newspaper records, may I see examples of reportage of those meetings? Do you want me to email the Houston Press and ask if the minutes were recorded?
  • WhisperToMe (talk) 06:36, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bayshorebabydoll (talk) 16:02, 22 April 2013 (UTC)So by your own admission the Houston Press article was written in 2008 and some of it could be outdated? Then why should outdated material be included in the Wikipedia entry? Why do the opinions of several individuals from 5years ago merit enough weight to comprise the majority of the Wiki entry? "An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject. For example, discussion of isolated events, criticisms, or news reports about a subject may be verifiable and impartial, but still disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic". The previous incarnation used the majority of its information from the Houston Press article, which calls into question undue weight. If you look at the Wiki entries on Texas City, Santa Fe, and Dickinson, which are cities located nearby they rely mostly on facts about these respective places and not quotes from a newspaper article written in the past. This is what the Bacliff article should look like and what I've been modeling my edits on.[reply]

  • Yes, and it is fine to include "outdated" information as it covers a history of a place, and because we have absolutely nothing published that is from 2013 about the aspects covered by the press articles, so this is what we have about Bacliff. Remember that Bacliff is a small community of about 8,000 people so there is a paucity of published information. Yes, there is WP:Undue which asks users to give appropriate weight to a aspects of a subject, but that is based on published sources. The Houston Press has published two articles about Bacliff crime, and for a town of 8,000 that should be fine as a weight. An investigative article covering a place doesn't count as an isolated event. The previous incarnation used more sources than from the Houston Press, and I found those additional sources from the Chronicle. AFAIK they didn't talk too much about Bacliff social life or culture. There may be even more articles about Bacliff but I'd have to go to the library to get pre1985 chronicle articles or Houston Post (closed 1995) articles since they aren't online. About the other Galveston county communities, those lacked the article development this one had, and remember a GA reviewer ranked this as a "good article" WhisperToMe (talk) 03:36, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
http://seabreezenews.com says it's designed by Gator's hosting. https://twitter.com/gatorpresstx says that Gator Miller is in fact, Gator Press. https://www.facebook.com/GatorPressTx says "Publishers of: NightMoves Entertainment Magazine, The Mainland Press, The Seabreeze News, Texas Top 40 Radio, and Monarch Corona Sports Cards." Several of those pages show a picture of someone apparently Gator Miller. So I'm willing to believe that it is, in fact published by such a person, who does, in fact, exist. Why did you think he didn't? --GRuban (talk) 16:56, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If Bayshorebabydoll does not come back within five days to answer the inquiry I will revert her edits when needed WhisperToMe (talk) 19:24, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bayshorebabydoll (talk) 16:02, 22 April 2013 (UTC)Because repeated Google searches for Gator Miller did not turn up anyone connected to Bacliff. The Gator Press is out of San Leon, which is right next door to, but a separate area from Bacliff.[reply]

Maybe a solution is to see if there are more sources. I am not convinced that the material in the Houston Press should be excluded. But if you feel there is more to Bacliff, please find additional news articles that talk about Bacliff. The Galveston County Daily News may have more info. WhisperToMe (talk) 03:12, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Miscellaneous places

[edit]

Veterans of Foreign Wars Hall, 1402 Grand Ave., Bacliff. WhisperToMe (talk) 08:45, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Bacliff, Texas. 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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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) 07:48, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Bacliff, Texas. 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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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) 21:52, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Bacliff, Texas. 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) 04:23, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Bacliff, Texas. 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) 14:33, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Bacliff,_Texas&oldid=1205593866"