Jump to content

Talk:River Oaks, Houston

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Good articleRiver Oaks, Houston 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
June 11, 2008Good article nomineeListed

Master Planned Community

[edit]

Hi, User:RJN. Thanks for your contributions & cleanup of the article lately! However, could you please explain your insistance on putting the term "master-planned community" in this article? I was sort of surprised to see you just revert my change rather than discuss it here. I have agreed that although it was "planned," the term has been redefined in modern history (specifically, master-planned) to mean something significantly different. Accordinglly, the inclusion of that term in this article actually creates confusion and a misconception whereas removing it would not detract from the accuracy of the article. Dbchip 22:06, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ROPS

[edit]

I grew up in River Oaks, and the term "ROPS" was never used to describe the River Oaks Patrol. "ROPO" was used consistently. However, an older generation may have used the term "ROPS" before my time. Can anyone explain where and when they heard the term "ROPS" used?

I first heard ROPS in 2002 or 2003 and it's largely slang or a joke, but it definitely is used. Dbchip 23:13, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the River Oaks Patrol is referred to in the article as a police department. This I am almost sure is not exactly true.

That's a good point -- I don't really know the technicalities of what defines a police department vs a security force, but I really don't think ROPO has a police department in the sense that I don't think they have arrest privileges or carry weapons. However, they take their job pretty seriously and are quite rigorous; it might be appropriate to remove the term "police department" but try to explain that they department is more than rent-a-cops or a neighborhood watch program. Dbchip 23:13, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

River Oaks Patrol is definitely not a police department. It is not listed on the Texas Commission on Law Enforcement Officer Standards and Education website as a law enforcement agency (TCLEOSE governs law enforcement in Texas). See http://www.tcleose.state.tx.us/Public%20Notice/all%20active%20depts.pdf.

River Oaks Patrol is listed on the Texas DPS Private Security Board website as a guard and alarm company. See http://www.txdps.state.tx.us/psb/company/company_details.aspx?id=C01276.

GA

[edit]

Although Somno has already indicated his intention to review this article, I will offer some comments. Unfortunately, this article is a long way from meeting the Good Article criteria. At this point, I would classify it as Start-class. The lead section is too short, the article order is all over the place, and doesn't comply with guidelines for city articles. Most sections have very little text, indicating serious problems with the completeness criterion. I see a couple of external links within the article text, which should only be found in 'external links'.

I would strongly encourage editors to take a look at the WikiProject Cities' guideline for US cities. Also, take a look at WP:LEAD for help on writing a good lead section that offers an adequate summary of the article. Part of the lead issues could be addressed by simply eliminating the 'overview' section header, and moving that up to lead (simple wikification).

At present, this article is little more than a listing of trivial bits of information on the community, and not a GA. Dr. Cash (talk) 19:46, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the article does not meet GA status at this time, but I still want to give it a detailed review to help the editor(s) along. (Also, it'd be her intention to review, not his :) Just as a heads up, WhisperToMe, much of the stuff I'll suggest will be the same as what I suggested for Gulfton. Somno (talk) 00:59, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much, Dr. Cash and Somno :) WhisperToMe (talk) 02:05, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I made a few changes, hopefully for a better chance at GA. Thanks, Postoak (talk) 07:44, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is also a history section at http://www.ropo.org/neighbor.html WhisperToMe (talk) 15:18, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

GA review

[edit]

Sorry for the delay in posting the review. My suggestions are below. I believe there are many issues to address before the article meets GA criteria, and it's going to be a tough ask to do that in one week. However, since the article has come a long way already, I think there's no harm in placing the article on hold for a week so you can make the changes suggested below and by Dr Cash. If you don't meet the deadline, that's OK, the article will fail but you can renominate it when you've improved it further. Good work so far.

Lead

  • The lead sure has improved since I first looked at the article!
  • "River Oaks is in proximity to" - I would change this to "River Oaks is close to".
  • Shouldn't have references in the middle of a sentence - all should be after punctuation. You could either put a comma after 1923 in the last sentence or move the references to the end.
  • An infobox would be a nice touch, maybe Template:Infobox Settlement?
  • When you have addressed the suggestions below, you should come back to the lead and rewrite it to summarise the article, per WP:LEAD.

History

  • "in the following year Hogg established" - which Hogg?
  • "in order to augment the development" could be replaced with "to support the development" or something similar, just to shorten and clarify?
  • "William, Michael, and their sister Ima Hogg oversaw the construction of a stately southern-style home, Bayou Bend, on a 14-acre plot sitting high above Buffalo Bayou on Lazy Lane." is a very long sentence.
  • "The developers took care to enhance the many parks and esplanades" is directly copied from the source - reword everything unless it's a quote. Same for "cohesive whole" in the next sentence.
  • "River Oaks became a model for community planning" - a model for whom?
  • "Deed restrictions at the time prohibited home prices in the community of less than $7,000 and required control in architecture," could perhaps be "Deed conditions restricted home prices to over $7,000 and specified architectural styles." or something similar?
  • "usually peaceful community" - no citation for "usually peaceful", so how about just saying it "was the site of..."
  • "Doris Angleton. [12]" - remove space before citation.
  • Should include some more information about the growth and development of the community, as there is nothing mentioned after the 1920s except for the murders and Enron connection. I don't mean demographic information, more like the community experienced a growth period in the 1960s because more land was made available etc (I just made that up, but that's the sort of info I mean).

Geography

  • You have mentioned the exact location of River Oaks in the lead, but it's not mentioned elsewhere in the article. Add a Geography section where you can expand on this information and possibly move some of the detail from the lead.
  • I would also like to know more about the architecture. When were restrictions lifted? What does the community look like now - what sort of buildings and style of homes does it contain?

Demographics

  • "The Houston Super Neighborhood #23 Afton Oaks/River Oaks" - what is this? Could you say "River Oaks is included in the Houston Super etc, which is..."?
  • This section doesn't flow very well and information is missing. For example, average ages, income, family structure, religion, and trends and changes over time. How does River Oaks compare to the rest of Houston?
  • In my experience, demographics are usually presented as percentages, not exact numbers.

Schools and public libraries

  • Split these two topics - schools should be in an Education section and the library information incorporated into another section such as Infrastructure. Correction: Library information should be included in the education section, per WP:USCITY. Dr. Cash (talk) 15:44, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think you need subsections for public and private schools, just separate paragraphs. Put the gallery at the end of the section.
  • You have citations in the middle of sentences here - move to end or after punctuation.
  • "There is a joke in the River Oaks community that states that River Oaks Boulevard is the only street with a country club at both ends." - is this notable enough for an encylopedia?
  • "Between 1986 and 1996, River Oaks Elementary School only admitted magnet school students, and River Oaks itself was divided between the attendance zones of Wilson Elementary School and Will Rogers Elementary School, the latter of which closed in Spring 2006. [23]" - please explain what "magnet" school students are, sentence doesn't flow well, "spring" should be in lowercase, remove space before reference.
  • What is a neighborhood program, and why did parents want it back?
  • Can the private schools section be represented in prose?
  • Any colleges or universities?

Media

  • Should be "area's regional newspaper?
  • "Bellaire/West U/River Oaks/Meyerland local section" - what is this? A specific section of the Houston Chronicle that covers local issues?
  • Any other types of local media? I assume its radio and TV stations are all the same as Houston's.

Infrastructure and government

  • Infrastructure should include info about transportation.
  • "River Oaks has one of the lowest crime rates in Houston." would be good further up where you've said the community is usually peaceful.

Businesses and organizations

  • Is not a typical section for an article. I suggest moving the shopping center stuff into an Economy section and expanding on it being one of the nation's first auto-oriented retail centers (and what exactly that means). Economy can also include major industries or companies, and average incomes and rates of employment.
  • The rest of this section belongs in a new section called Arts and culture.

Notable residents

  • Hooray, they all have sources! :)

Parks and recreation

  • Can move into Arts and culture.

See also

  • Should be before References.

References

  • Need to complete the citations, e.g. many citations don't have a publisher or retrieval and publication dates. Some of the references are a little iffy, e.g. About.com, and the Elite 100 info is from a blog.

Best of luck improving the article further. :) Somno (talk) 08:40, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I will work on some of the recommendations later this afternoon. Postoak (talk) 16:33, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also someone could use this http://cdn-530.homes.com/c1/cgi-bin/readimage/107727530 to make a map of the River Oaks area. I know it appeared in the Chronicle, so this should be a reliable source. WhisperToMe (talk) 01:28, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wish I could make a map like the obe you referenced! Anyway, aome of the recommendations are complete, still some to go. Need help with adding the dates to the refs. I'm not sure about adding an infobox. River Oaks is part of Houston and similar communities within the city don't have an infobox. Postoak (talk) 07:48, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Community colleges

[edit]

I want to say that River Oaks is within the Houston Community College System, but how do I make a section that is not too stubby? Should I add that RO is close to University of St. Thomas and Rice University? WhisperToMe (talk) 23:06, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Final review

[edit]

It's not quite at GA standard yet, unfortunately. The broadness criterion is not met because some information is still missing, and the lead doesn't meet the guidelines. There has been a huge improvement in this article, and at this rate, it'll be a Good Article soon. Please renominate when you feel you've addressed the issues below and great work so far!

Lead

  • The lead still does not summarise the article and needs expansion. For example, it doesn't say how the community was established. It also mentions some info that's not elsewhere in the article, for example, that it's one of the wealthiest zip codes in the country. Refer to WP:LEAD for more info.
Corrected, Postoak (talk) 20:14, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

History

  • This has greatly improved and is a really interesting section. Still quite a jump between post-WWII and the 1970s though.
Wish there were more to add during this period, very quiet. Postoak (talk) 20:14, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Geography

  • Looks good. Can still be expanded, but it is almost GA quality if you add some references for the area size and number of properties. Refer to the WikiProject Cities/Guideline for suggestions of what info to add. A map would be great, but you don't need it for GA status.
done Postoak (talk) 20:14, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Demographics

  • Can definitely do with some more expansion, with the stuff I suggested before like average ages, income, family structure, religion and changes and trends over time. Comparisons with Houston would be good too.
This was revised, Postoak (talk) 20:14, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Culture

  • This could use a rewrite to improve the flow. For example, the Orchestra is located east of the shopping centre, but that's not mentioned until the end. Information-wise, the section is good though.
Resequenced, Postoak (talk) 20:14, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Education

  • Great!

Media

  • Still quite short, but if there's nothing else to say, there's nothing else to say. :)
Nothing specific to RO can I find! Postoak (talk) 20:14, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Infrastructure and government

  • Only thing missing (in my humble opinion anyway!) is that I would like to see voting trends in River Oaks. But that info might only be available for the whole of Houston.

Notable residents

  • I would question the addition of Tillman Fertitta, simply because there's no article, so notability might be an issue.
Actually, he is notable and has his own article. Link fixed Postoak (talk) 20:14, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

References

  • Some still need more info, for example number 31 is simply "Home Page. Retrieved on 23 May 2008." Who's the publisher?
COrrected Postoak (talk) 20:14, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Overall

  • As I said above, you've done a great job so far. I think the article is really interesting and well on its way to GA. I hope that you've found my reviews helpful and that you renominate soon. :) Somno (talk) 04:51, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Personally, I think the zip code sentence in the lead (which could have been moved to another section and was overlooked) and the one malformed reference is all that prevented this article from being GA. Postoak (talk) 06:44, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Once you and I make the changes, all we need to do is renominate this :) WhisperToMe (talk) 07:36, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I already made both changes. The zip code sentence was moved to demographics and the lead was slightly revised. I don't think the demographic section needs expansion, but maybe you can find something to add. There really isn't much additional history to report. The ref was expanded. Culture, well they're all rich and live in mansions. Tilman J. Fertitta is notable. Postoak (talk) 07:50, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If you haven't already, please take a look at the guideline for US cities as suggested by Derek.cashman above for more information about what to include. Based on the information I've provided about why the article has failed, I'm not sure why you think it's just a matter of the zip code and one reference? The article needs to be broad, and at the moment it's not broad enough. There are also issues with the lead. Both of these are essential requirements for a good article. Best of luck, Somno (talk) 08:08, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have looked at the guideline and I'm well aware what it takes to get a city article to be featured status. This is a community/neighborhood within Houston and is almost impossible to develop and expand as if it was a city. The lead was revised so that it summarizes the article. In any event, if someone else wishes to continue the GA process here, then good luck to them. Furthermore, please review the lead and content of Washington Park, Chicago (neighborhood) which I believe is an equivalent neighborhood article to River Oaks and is a good article. There are elements in the lead (median income and residents living below poverty level) of this article nowhere to be found in the body. If you review WP:USCITY and then compare the two articles, you will see the River Oaks article follows the guideline more closely when it comes to the suggested sections. Which article do you think is more broad? Postoak (talk) 08:18, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, Unless someone can manipulate the US Census site by ZIP code and somehow get information by ZIP code, all we have is the City of Houston statistics. I can compare it to the rest of Houston since the COH also tallied the city as a whole. WhisperToMe (talk) 15:30, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I guess no response to my concerns above by the reviewer. Anyway, I made a few adjustments and will renominate the article. Postoak (talk) 05:30, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, hadn't checked this talk page in a couple of days. Definitely agree that it's different to a city article, and the Demographics section has improved with some comparisons made to the whole of Houston. You still need to fix some of the references - I just pointed out number 31 because it was the worst. For example, number 2 has "MSN Money" in the title of the article - it should be in the publisher field. Otherwise, looks good and is close to passing in my humble opinion. Actually, I would pass it, but I won't be the GA reviewer this time so you can get some more feedback from another editor. :) Somno (talk) 14:42, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I will go back and recheck the references. Thanks for your help, Postoak (talk) 20:21, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No worries, glad I could be of assistance. You and WhisperToMe have done a great job with this article - crazy how much it's improved since I first looked at it! ;) Somno (talk) 01:58, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Revised references, thanks again! Postoak (talk) 20:14, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:River Oaks, Houston, Texas/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Review by Epicadam (talk) 23:36, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  1. Is it reasonably well written?
    A. Prose quality:
    Looks good. The article is well-written with no obvious grammatical flaws or structural problems.
    B. MoS compliance:
  2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
    A. References to sources:
    There was one dead URL but I went ahead and fixed it.
    B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
    C. No original research:
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. Major aspects:
    B. Focused:
    Why are there two sets of figures under the demographics section? It looks strange to list both. Typically Wikipedia sticks with Census figures. I, too, would like to see more about the politics of the area besides the fact that it has a GOP rep in Congress.
  4. Is it neutral?
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. Is it stable?
    No edit wars, etc:
  6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
    A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
    B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:
    Besides the two small items in the Demographics section, I think this is article is ready for GA status. Since the problems with the article from previous reviewers have been resolved and I'm the only other reviewer in the last week since the renomination, I will go ahead an move the article to GA.
Yay, congrats! :) Somno (talk) 01:16, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Local Government Info

[edit]

The third paragraph under Local Government includes a lot of information that seems overly specific, irrelevant and with questionable objectivity. I am referring to the discussion of the 1989 race, and conjecture about why someone won or didn't win, with fairly biased overtones. Regardless of objectivity, I'm not sure this is pertinent information. A minor issue from an election two decades ago doesn't seem to fit in the more general information surrounding it. I would suggest we strike out everything but the first and last sentence in that paragraph. (The last could probably go too, but it more pertinent to the community's place in the City....kind of.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jbower47 (talk • contribs) 17:08, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. Everything in the paragraph except the first sentence should be deleted.Sandcherry (talk) 01:50, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Let's take a look at the third paragraph:
"In 1989, during a city council race, many in River Oaks voted for Jim Westmoreland for an at-large position. In one precinct 66.3 percent of the voting residents voted for him. Westmoreland drew controversy after reports of a joke that was characterized as "racist" spread. Beverley Clark, the opponent and a Black teacher, defeated Westmoreland in that race. In a 1989 Houston Chronicle article, Nancy Palm, a Republican Party activist from western Houston, said that the residents who voted for Westmoreland had social ties with them and did not see the controversy as significant."
This is more than just a particular race where one candidate beat another in the city. It discusses the River Oaks community's stance over a racial and political controversy during the time.
The paragraph does not make any judgments about whether River Oaks was right or wrong to do what it did. The way that the debate was phrased in regards to River Oaks's voting is the exact same manner used by the Chronicle article (read it and see what I mean) - The statement that River Oaks voted for Westmoreland despite the controversy is in the Chronicle article - it was not original analysis from an editor.
There are no other significant statements regarding this race, to my knowledge, that were made about River Oaks's stance in any reliable sources. So far Nancy Palm's statements are the only analysis that I know of related to this issue that specifically have to do with River Oaks, and the Wikipedia article is justified in showing Palm's analysis alone.
I wouldn't characterize this as a "minor issue" (at the time) - Read the Chronicle article. The whole Westmoreland controversy caused many different reactions from the city, and ultimately he lost the election, largely because of that statement.
Also please keep in mind that all of this survived the Good article nomination in 2008; to my knowledge the standards for inclusion have not increased since then. As a matter of fact, one of the requirements of good article nominations is that each section must have substantial content. By having this tidbit, the section about local government has "meat" that dives under the surface and is not simply a directory
If you think that there could be other political issues related to local government in River Oaks that are more significant or more relevant, please find sources that describe these issues.
WhisperToMe (talk) 22:51, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What I would recommend is that you rewrite this in less specific terms if it is important to portray racial attitudes. I am not sold it is. Especially since such things are inherently dynamic. They do not necessarily reflect current attitudes one way or another. It's an inherently subjective assessment. If your intent is to portray the GENERAL state of racial attitudes of the area, a single incidence, especially handled in a slightly POV framework, is inherently anecdotal. I don't mean offense, of course. It just doesn't seem to fit with the rest of the article. I'd recommend that you either expand it to include more, objective, referenced examples to make your general point (and more clearly state the general point you are making) or you remove it. A single incident or time period does not make for a general summary of prevailing attitudes on race or governance.--Jbower47 (talk) 18:49, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, the text: "In 1989, many in River Oaks voted for Jim Westmoreland for an at-large city council position. Westmoreland drew controversy after reports of a joke that was characterized as "racist" spread. Beverley Clark, his opponent and a black teacher, defeated him. In a Houston Chronicle article, Nancy Palm, a Republican Party activist from western Houston, said residents who voted for Westmoreland had social ties with him and did not see the controversy as significant."
"What I would recommend is that you rewrite this in less specific terms if it is important to portray racial attitudes. I am not sold it is. Especially since such things are inherently dynamic. They do not necessarily reflect current attitudes one way or another." - Only if I find a source saying more about it. See, I understand that attitudes change as times change. That's why the time period (1989) is specified. If the reader fails to notice the year, and gets the wrong impression, then that's his/her responsibility.
However I cannot write "attitudes have changed since then" as there is no reliable source that says that. WP:V makes it clear that verifiability and NOT proof is the criterion for inclusion.
So the only way to do it is to state exactly what happened, what people said, and who said what.
My intent was to state River Oaks residents attitudes towards this particular scandal in the year 1989. In absence of additional sources, I believe that the way it was written is acceptable and fair.
If you read the source that the statement comes from, it compares and contrasts different neighborhoods' reactions to this particular scandal.
WhisperToMe (talk) 04:25, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Good points and very well presented. BTW, welcome to Wikipedia...Sandcherry (talk) 02:25, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sandcherry, read the reply above. WhisperToMe (talk) 04:25, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt that much of River Oaks is in Ellen Cohen's state Representaive district. I think it is mostly in Beverly Wooley's district, but I would have to find a district map and check. Cohen is a Democrat and Wooley is a Republican. Scott Tillinghast, Houston TX (talk) 04:27, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Molly Ivins and River Oaks

[edit]

While referring to "white trash" wealthy murder cases Ivins asks "does River Oaks have an unusually high murder rate or does it just seem that way?" - It seems like she was half kidding (RO doesn't seriously have a high crime rate), but was trying to say that there were several high profile "white trash" rich people murders in that community - Also, I am aware that for opinion columns generally it's okay for reporting on opinions, but not so much on facts WhisperToMe (talk) 16:38, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Recent edits regarding "opinions"

[edit]

Hi, Sandcherry. From my experience editing here, it's quite okay to post opinions. Opinions about topics and subjects are documented on Wikipedia. Articles should document the viewpoints in addition to the hard facts. Now, they have to be cited.

The problem with removing opinions is that people are then going to try to insert commonly held views/ideas about a place or thing, but it's not referenced, and that degrades the article. When you have journalist quotes/quotes from book authors talking about how they view a place or what the significance of a place is, it adds to an article. It states what people think.

People perceive of River Oaks as being a symbol of hyper-capitalism. That needs to be documented in the article. WhisperToMe (talk) 10:37, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Here's another tip: be careful when removing "blogs" - Some blogs on newspaper websites are done by the newspaper employees which means they are really newspaper articles, and are not to be treated as blogs. This "blog" was in fact a newspaper article. Houston Press "blogs" done by employees of the Houston Press are in fact reliable sources. WhisperToMe (talk) 09:14, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And as for conversions - Wikipedia has readers from countries other than the United States, so conversions are always needed. If you are dealing with a US subject, you start with US measurements but convert to metric; vice versa when dealing with a subject in a country that uses the metric system. WhisperToMe (talk) 09:15, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Excessive precision removed via Wiki area calculator. Sandcherry (talk) 00:34, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have concerns that your removal of opinions from articles is taking away important nuances from them - From this, this "opinion" is needed to show that there was significant parental dissatisfaction with the move to close the school. That fact needs to be expressed. How else would one do that but to phrase the parents' opinion, which reveals the fact? WhisperToMe (talk)
  • I am also especially concerned about this removal of Jim Bath and Bin Mahfouz - there was no edit summary ("clean up" does not count). Why were they removed??? Both are Wikipedia notable figures. WhisperToMe (talk) 16:07, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sandcherry removed these comments from his talk page while not making any further comment. I am re-posting these here. WhisperToMe (talk) 03:52, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As it should be. Sandcherry (talk) 23:04, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

River Oaks Plant House

[edit]

I'm waiting to see if there are other RSes that mention this business, but the River Oaks Plant House was ranked "Best Florist - 2010" by the Houston Press.

WhisperToMe (talk) 03:11, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Doris Angleton murder

[edit]

Is the inclusion of Doris Angleton's murder warranted? She is described as a "socialite" (a loose term in River Oaks?) in her Wiki article and was married to a bookie who was later convicted. She has a Wiki article, but I can not find anything particulalrly notable about her other than her murder (alledgedly by her brother-in-law) which happened to occur in River Oaks. Sandcherry (talk) 23:24, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Blacklisted Links Found on the Main Page

[edit]

Cyberbot II has detected that page contains external links that have either been globally or locally blacklisted. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed, or are highly innappropriate for Wikipedia. This, however, doesn't necessarily mean it's spam, or not a good link. If the link is a good link, you may wish to request whitelisting by going to the request page for whitelisting. If you feel the link being caught by the blacklist is a false positive, or no longer needed on the blacklist, you may request the regex be removed or altered at the blacklist request page. If the link is blacklisted globally and you feel the above applies you may request to whitelist it using the before mentioned request page, or request it's removal, or alteration, at the request page on meta. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. The whitelisting process can take its time so once a request has been filled out, you may set the invisible parameter on the tag to true. Please be aware that the bot will replace removed tags, and will remove misplaced tags regularly.

Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:

  • http://www.articlesbase.com/non-fiction-articles/living-in-river-oaks-makes-a-statement-152079.html
    Triggered by \barticles(?:base|vana)\.com\b on the global blacklist

If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.

From your friendly hard working bot.—cyberbot II NotifyOnline 15:47, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Fastow

[edit]

I came across this article while reading about Fastow and am confused. This article cites Fastow as a "Notable Resident" of this neighborhood and cites an article that says he sold his house many years ago, so he's not a resident. Shouldn't he be removed? Or should WP break up the historical vs current residents? — Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}#top|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]])

  • Hi! Not a lot of people check the talk pages! Anyway, I don't believe former residents (whether they moved away or whether they died) should be removed. Current vs. former could be done, but it could take a bit of work to maintain that. It may be better to just clarify that the list has both current and former residents. WhisperToMe (talk) 01:24, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 5 external links on River Oaks, Houston. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. 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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 05:56, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Crazy Range

[edit]

The claim that houses are valued "from $1 million to over $20 million" is sort of a ridiculous range. What is the actual upper end and why not say that? Why give a range if there's no upper end at all? Technically "from 1 to over 20" is as accurate as just saying "more than a million" since there's no upper end. Since tax assessments are questionable, it might be best to just look at the last five years (or whatever) of sales and include that range. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ryguy214 (talk • contribs) 12:56, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 27 external links on River Oaks, Houston. 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) 10:46, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Harris County block book maps

[edit]

I'm posting block book maps made by the Harris County government on Wikipedia talk pages for Houston neighborhoods. These may be useful in determining the River Oaks boundaries (whether a house is/was in River Oaks or not), and/or for verification of other matters related to River Oaks. It's possible not all the records were made/survived as Section 2 isn't listed at all and only some blocks of Section 1 are listed. Anyway: River Oaks Key Map (PDF and JPG)

WhisperToMe (talk) 01:30, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

River Oaks Country Club Estates by block:

Homewoods Section: http://books.tax.hctx.net/BlockBooksPDF/v060/AE1997_Vol_60_0132.pdf and http://books.tax.hctx.net/v060/AE1997_Vol_60_0132.jpg

Talltimbers Section:

WhisperToMe (talk) 12:21, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Found it on the A.C. Reynolds Index map! http://books.tax.hctx.net/v041/AE1997_41-1_0221.jpg and http://books.tax.hctx.net/BlockBooksPDF/v041/AE1997_41-1_0221.pdf WhisperToMe (talk) 13:17, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Also: Index map of western River Oaks including Talltimbers Section: http://books.tax.hctx.net/BlockBooksPDF/v041/AE1997_41-1_0224.pdf and http://books.tax.hctx.net/v041/AE1997_41-1_0224.jpg - Two parcels are not a part of Talltimbers but carried with it WhisperToMe (talk) 02:53, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Also the original survey maps showing where River Oaks was built: A.C. Reynolds Survey, Volume 41, Block 61

  • (PDF, JPG)
  • (PDF, JPG)
  • Page 17-7 (PDF, JPG)
  • Page 17-7 (PDF, JPG) - River Oaks School is indicated here, also says "See New Map for 1971", "Meyers First Add Volume 56 Page 246", and "See Below" - Also Vermont Place Volume 56 Page 159, and Glendower Court Volume 56 Page 13, and Avalon Place Volume 54 Page 175

WhisperToMe (talk) 06:01, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@WhisperToMe: There is a really good offline secondary source on River Oaks: Cheryl Caldwell Ferguson, Highland Park and River Oaks: The Origins of Garden Suburban Community Planning in Texas (Austin: University of Texas Press), 2014. If I can find the time, I can reread the book and see how well it defines the boundaries of River Oaks. Oldsanfelipe2 (talk) 10:38, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Oldsanfelipe2: Good to know! There's even a Wikipedia article about the book itself: Highland Park and River Oaks WhisperToMe (talk) 17:37, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting that there is an article about the book, yet the book has not been used as a source for the article about River Oaks. The Highland Park, Texas article mentions it as further reading, but does not cite it to support Wikipedia content.Oldsanfelipe2 (talk) 17:52, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Photo idea

[edit]

Langdon-CUmmings House https://www.houstontx.gov:443/planning/HistoricPres/landmarks/14L297_2131_Troon.pdf Everett Seale house https://www.houstontx.gov:443/planning/HistoricPres/landmarks/08L199_Dr_Everett_Seale_House_3408_Ella_Lee.pdf WhisperToMe (talk) 13:59, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Update

[edit]

Many of these citations are over a decade old and the information is out of date. A quick review of the article reveals that the garden is not being weeded. I will help out where I can. Oldsanfelipe2 (talk) 10:43, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sources for improving the article

[edit]

Online sources:

Offline source:

  • Cheryl Caldwell Ferguson, Highland Park and River Oaks: The Origins of Garden Suburban Community Planning in Texas (Austin: University of Texas Press), 2014.

Oldsanfelipe2 (talk) 11:18, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Only seven years ago

[edit]

Part and parcel of how poorly this article is being maintained: the buses serving River Oaks were using wrong route numbers and names. Metro changed these in August 2013. Who is ready to update and maintain this article? Oldsanfelipe2 (talk) 18:14, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Oldsanfelipe2: Indeed information does get out of date, and one issue on WP is that there are fewer and fewer editors. :( It's gotten more difficult to learn how to edit. This is one reason why I like using the {{Asof|}} tag, because information does go out of date. WhisperToMe (talk) 18:34, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • You've been around much longer than I have. In what way do you mean that it's more difficult to edit? And in what sense are there fewer editors? Is it a lack of retention, a lack of new accounts, etc. FWIW, I am willing to help newer editors with what I know. Oldsanfelipe2 (talk) 18:57, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • @Oldsanfelipe2: There are automated bots removing edits, a large amount of rules (many of which were necessary, but which add to the complexity), and more stringent sourcing requirements. Also it's much harder to edit on a cell phone than on a desktop computer. What would help for articles in subject areas in my opinion are lists of topic-oriented guidelines that automatically display when a new user is editing for the first time. WhisperToMe (talk) 08:04, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        • @WhisperToMe: Those are good points. I cannot imagine writing without a desktop. I would give up my mobile before I would give up my desk top, but I realize that I am odd in that way. I am not really a tech-oriented person, so I have to leave it to others to work on those kind of solutions. I will add that we do have a tool that is not be used to their potential: the WikiProjects. Two years ago I created a few articles for Women in Red. That and the WikiProject Women's History are models for coordinated participation. True, they have more editors, but have the other WikiProjects really been effective in communicating with other editors who are interested in their project? It's worth a thought. Oldsanfelipe2 (talk) 13:53, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
          • @Oldsanfelipe2: About a decade ago WikiProjects in general were busier. Partly because many of the major articles were already "Written" and partly because of said difficulties/decline in participation, the WikiProjects are not as busy as they used to be. There are some in-person Wikipedia events done in Houston, so showing up to those and helping out would be really awesome WhisperToMe (talk) 18:59, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:River_Oaks,_Houston&oldid=1200812330"