Talk:Heavy rains welcomed in Texas

• Interview on 3-15-2012 at 3:07pm with William Davidson, of Chandler, Texas:

Q: You live close to [Lake Palestine], don't you? A: "Oh year, right near it."

Q: What's it looking like?
A: "Oh, it's up. It's up alot after these rains. I'd say the lake has risen about 5 feet within the past 2 months. It's nice."

Q: Do you remember last summer?
A: (Laughs) Yeah, yeah, last summer was unbelievable. The lake looked scary. It's slowly returning to normal."Bddpaux (talk) 02:59, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

---

• My observations of Lake Palestine, northwestern-most section (bridge on Highway 315 just south of Chandler, Texas) on 3-15-2012 at 3:29pm:

The lake is much higher than it was last fall............the areas immediately adjacent to the bridge are totally submerged(unlike last Fall). The water at the boat launch is almost touching the small pier there............last summer, the water was about 300 yards from that pier.Bddpaux (talk) 02:59, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

• Observation of Kickapoo Creek (just west of Chandler, Texas) and the Neches river (just east of Chandler, Texas....near the mouth of Lake Palestine):

very high water levels............dozens and dozens of people fishing.............water several feet over the banks of each.Bddpaux (talk) 02:59, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Review of revision 1438048 [Not ready]

Revision 1438048 of this article has been reviewed by Pi zero (talk · contribs) and found not ready at 04:05, 17 March 2012 (UTC). Copyright: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Newsworthiness: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Verifiability: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. NPOV: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Style: Not ready: See below. Comments by reviewer: The intended focus, as I understand it, is the reaction of folks in Texas to the heavy rains. (Okay, "many" should probably be backed off on in the headline, but still, reactions appear to be the intended focus.) The lede doesn't mention those reactions, though; it contains only a less focal part of what's in the headline. The additional material that used to be in the first paragraph, that I separated from it by inserting a paragraph break, also wasn't a lede-level description of that facet of the article, either, but rather more-in-depth detail. It seems a second sentence added onto the end of the current first paragraph might do the trick. Questions about the above? Ask. If possible, please address the above issues then resubmit the article for another review (by replacing {{tasks}} in the article with {{review}}). This talk page will be updated with subsequent reviews.

Revision 1438048 of this article has been reviewed by Pi zero (talk · contribs) and found not ready at 04:05, 17 March 2012 (UTC). Copyright: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Newsworthiness: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Verifiability: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. NPOV: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Style: Not ready: See below. Comments by reviewer: The intended focus, as I understand it, is the reaction of folks in Texas to the heavy rains. (Okay, "many" should probably be backed off on in the headline, but still, reactions appear to be the intended focus.) The lede doesn't mention those reactions, though; it contains only a less focal part of what's in the headline. The additional material that used to be in the first paragraph, that I separated from it by inserting a paragraph break, also wasn't a lede-level description of that facet of the article, either, but rather more-in-depth detail. It seems a second sentence added onto the end of the current first paragraph might do the trick. Questions about the above? Ask. If possible, please address the above issues then resubmit the article for another review (by replacing {{tasks}} in the article with {{review}}). This talk page will be updated with subsequent reviews.

OK........

I think I got everything......a little bit of a chunkier OR interview probably would've helped.....I guess we were both short on words that day! Bddpaux (talk) 05:27, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Review of revision 1438551 [Passed]

Revision 1438551 of this article has been reviewed by Pi zero (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 16:48, 17 March 2012 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: None added. The reviewed revision should automatically have been edited by removing {{Review}} and adding {{Publish}} at the bottom, and the edit sighted; if this did not happen, it may be done manually by a reviewer.

Revision 1438551 of this article has been reviewed by Pi zero (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 16:48, 17 March 2012 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: None added. The reviewed revision should automatically have been edited by removing {{Review}} and adding {{Publish}} at the bottom, and the edit sighted; if this did not happen, it may be done manually by a reviewer.

Review of revision 1438556 [Passed]

Revision 1438556 of this article has been reviewed by Pi zero (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 16:50, 17 March 2012 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: None added. The reviewed revision should automatically have been edited by removing {{Review}} and adding {{Publish}} at the bottom, and the edit sighted; if this did not happen, it may be done manually by a reviewer.

Revision 1438556 of this article has been reviewed by Pi zero (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 16:50, 17 March 2012 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: None added. The reviewed revision should automatically have been edited by removing {{Review}} and adding {{Publish}} at the bottom, and the edit sighted; if this did not happen, it may be done manually by a reviewer.