Talk:Wind Wolves Preserve
Add topic | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||
 | The following Wikipedia contributor may be personally or professionally connected to the subject of this article. Relevant policies and guidelines may include conflict of interest, autobiography, and neutral point of view. |
Article revisions
[edit]I revised article to address tone and wording concerns and verified key sources. I'll continue reviewing citations as needed. Specific concerns about remaining content are welcome here. BookOfDisquiet (talk) 08:49, 5 February 2026 (UTC)
- @BookOfDisquiet I checked the first two sections (Geography and Flora and fauna) for issues and marked them as needed. The other sections will need to be checked for source-to-text integrity as well. Katzrockso (talk) 00:04, 8 February 2026 (UTC)
- Thanks — I’m reviewing the recent edits now and will note any comments below. BookOfDisquiet (talk) 05:46, 8 February 2026 (UTC)
- @Katzrockso:
- I finished revising the article (all sections from infobox and lead through references). Changes include improved sourcing, removing or qualifying comparative claims, and trimming prose. References have been consolidated as named citations.
- Note my early February changes that you reviewed have been substantially revised along with later sections.
- Feedback on any remaining issues is welcome. BookOfDisquiet (talk) 17:43, 11 May 2026 (UTC)
Comments on recent edits
[edit]The claim that it is the “largest West Coast nonprofit nature preserve” is difficult to verify reliably. There is no independent, comprehensive list of nonprofit preserves, and news coverage does not make clear the basis for comparison. BookOfDisquiet (talk) 06:03, 8 February 2026 (UTC) The CDFW document (p. 33) states: “At 90,000 acres, the Preserve is one of the largest nonprofit preserves in the western United States.” This appears easier to justify than a “largest” claim, though it’s still a broad comparison. https://nrm.dfg.ca.gov/FileHandler.ashx?DocumentID=141458 BookOfDisquiet (talk) 09:16, 8 February 2026 (UTC)
“Riparian” is a standard ecological term widely used in park management materials and scientific literature; its removal reduces technical accuracy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BookOfDisquiet (talk • contribs) 06:17, 8 February 2026 (UTC)
The word "riparian" was dropped in restoration section. It should not have been it is less accurate now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BookOfDisquiet (talk • contribs) 06:34, 8 February 2026 (UTC)
The added condor material seems to go beyond Wind Wolves itself and brings in statewide release planning and Tejon Ranch issues, which may be tangential unless directly tied to the preserve. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BookOfDisquiet (talk • contribs) 06:53, 8 February 2026 (UTC) BookOfDisquiet (talk) 06:55, 8 February 2026 (UTC)
Neutrality concern
[edit]This article is basically written only by @BookOfDisquiet (Except for my one tweak to the article), who, as the template says, may be personally connected to the subject. I'm very unsure about WP:COI and WP:NPOV in this situaion, so, I'd like to bring it up to you, BookOfDisquiet, are you sure this article is not biased?
Also, WP:OWN. Just throwing that out in case. I'm here to fact-check if needed. | One Reaction was here. Got a complaint? 11:48, 11 May 2026 (UTC)
- Scrap this. After checking through, this article doesn't seem like to promotes or dispraises the subject. In fact, I'm kind of impressed by Book's determination to bring this topic they work with to public sources. Though I will take my time to fact-check every once and a while, good job! | One Reaction was here. Got a complaint? 13:57, 11 May 2026 (UTC)
Likely AI use
[edit]Concerns were raised previously via tag about AI-generated content in this article, which is prohibited per WP:NEWLLM. This is a procedural talk page section to discuss it. There is no need to ping me in response. Read WP:AISIGNS for more information for why this is tagged; however, note that fixing the issue requires more than just changing the superficial signs. Rationale: 2025 expansions such as this; note *extensive* WP:AISIGNS in superficial analyses ('highlighting/underscoring the importance of blah blah blah' all over the place), undue emphasis on significance, promotional tone ('cultural landscape' etc), vocab distribution very characteristics of LLMs, etc Gnomingstuff (talk) 21:11, 25 June 2026 (UTC)