This article is within the scope of WikiProject Amusement Parks, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Amusement parks on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Amusement ParksWikipedia:WikiProject Amusement ParksTemplate:WikiProject Amusement Parksamusement park articles
This article was copy edited by Herostratus, a member of the Guild of Copy Editors, on March 15, 2011.Guild of Copy EditorsWikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy EditorsTemplate:WikiProject Guild of Copy EditorsGuild of Copy Editors articles
On January 21st, 2008 while driving from Los Vegas into Los Angeles, we saw this waterpark, there were large cranes at the waterpark and some of the larger rides had been dismantled. Any information? 76.232.50.106 (talk) 01:01, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(Conversation in highlight moved from user talk page to article page for consistency and history)
Hey Spike --- I'm with you on much of what you're saying on Lake Dolores Waterpark. I just completed a 60+ hour marathon on this article. I'm working on it -- I just need a little more time. The references are coming. With all due respect -- can you please help me and be more specific --- after all, that's what you are asking of me, so it's only fair. Thanks. User talk:LogicallyCreative
The entire page is not written as an encyclopedic article. It said, for example, "After exhaustive and continuing research, there have been no records as of yet discovered..." Where's the citation for this? Who did the research? Either the park IS the first waterpark, or it's not. If it IS, then state that fact and cite it. No need for a complete paragraph explaining the theory behind it -- that's for a grade school essay, not WP. Similarly, phrases such as "As a point of clarification" is useless, "Conceived, designed, built, as well as owned and subsequently operated by prominent local businessman, the late John Robert "Bob" Byers" (just a bad sentence, and the businessman wasn't dead when he operated the park), "relatively unique waterpark experience (especially by today's standards)" (opinion, WP:OR. should be deleted). Would you like more? Almost every paragraph has something incredibly wrong with it. SpikeJones (talk) 22:49, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, Spike -- I would like more -- as a matter of fact, a paragraph-by-paragraph breakdown would be greatly appreciated. Oh, and while you're at it please define "incredibly". As for the "Research" I am the one who is performing this task -- however, it is not "Original Research" because the information is the end-result of interviews with the park's former principles for a published historical website and soon-to-be-released documentary film. By the way -- the supporting information is not "theory". I would suggest you re-visit your dictionary for a clear definition of the term "theory". These are actual actions that are currently "in-process". Isn't that part of the point, as well as the very purpose of an Encyclopedia that is "live"? Or do I just pretend that these activities are not occurring and say nothing? A firm, rock-solid conclusion on that issue has not yet been reached. As I said, most of what I have gathered is from interviews of family members and others instrumental in building or running both incarnations of the waterpark for a documentary film on the subject. One can't get much closer to the source than that. The citations are coming. Your above statement on "As a point of clarification...", again -- your opinion. I assert this intro is not "useless" -- but useful because there is a substantial amount of misinformation out in the real world pertaining to this park. This was inserted in order to note that the purpose is to "clarify" the widespread rumors and misinformation. Please explain your reasoning in greater detail.
The above "bad sentence" appears to be nothing more than your opinion, as well. From a journalistic standpoint, it is quite typical of a chronologue introduction. Where is the grammatical rule which states that it is incorrect to clarify the subject's current state within a past-tense sentence? Also -- Wikipedia is chock-full of articles which appear to be written by fifth-graders. I am constantly working to better this article -- as it is a "Work in progress". I am well-familiar with "Encyclopedic Tone" -- and within Wikipedia as a whole, there currently seems to be very little of it. In this vernacular -- I completely support what you are doing -- just not so much the way in which you are going about doing it. You are going way over the top relative to to corrections on other sites I see in Wikipedia on a daily basis. It almost comes across as being angry. If your true motive is to "correct" and to "better" Wikipedia -- this is not how one goes about doing it. I've corrected -- and have been corrected many times before, but never in this manner. It really comes across like you "have an axe to grind". Your "in your face" approach, quite frankly, leaves a lot to be desired. The Lake Dolores article has been rated a "C" which is only a start. I've seen articles within Wikipedia that are pure gibberish on every level -- are you correcting them? If your true motive is to "improve" then, improve.
As far as your "Relatively unique..." assertion -- after much internal debate, and in striving to be as accurate as possible (approximately four years ago when I wrote that particular phrase), that is a s close as I could get to the truth. I toyed with "the only one of its kind", etc. but I felt that, though 100% true, I would be getting even deeper into having to prove a negative. How does one cite a "negative", anyway?
I would like to work with you further on this, however statements like "Almost every paragraph has something incredibly wrong with it" are not only absurd in their vague generality as well as a needlessly "controlling" statement, but unprofessional, childish, and detract from the overall mission -- and will not get you your desired result (unless, that is, your "desired result" is to feel like the "authority" and the one who is "in charge" or "in control" -- which, I sincerely hope is not the case here).
You request that others "cite" -- and you are 100% correct. To be fair, you should not only follow your own advice -- but do so in as professional manner as possible, shouldn't you?
I look forward to further delving into this matter with you, professionalism maintained, of course.
I will address only one part of your post for now - that your edits are based on your own research in preparation for a historical-based website and documentary film. As such, the entire article is probably going to be flagged as having WP:COI and consisting entirely of WP:OR info, and therefore could have other eyeballs looking at it more critically than I have. SpikeJones (talk) 14:00, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The captions are more like adverts then they are captions. The multiple {{linkfarms}} at the end of the article are quite simply a mess. The complete lack of references in an article of this size is not acceptable. My personal opinion is that at AfD the article would survive since it is about a notable topic. But I know I would suggest a major overhaul. Citations are needed for all of the material in the article. From what I have read, on this page, going in and removing major chunks of the material as OR would be justified. I did remove the 'See also' section as I don't see how much of that belongs in there. The introduction is poorly written and it takes forever to find out what the park is about. I was going to suggest that Newberry springs be split out, but guess what, there is an article. That one also needs a good cleanup and includes some of the same issues as this one. In addition, the overlap between the two articles is substantial which I believe is not Kosher per the MoS. So yes this thing needs work as does the Newberry springs article. Vegaswikian (talk) 16:41, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Responding some more to LogicallyCreative's points above: agreed, that there are many articles that need cleanup. Today, we are talking about this one. I offer examples for cleanup, rather than making the major edits myself, as you appear to be the major contributor and would appreciate the opportunity to adjust the items yourself, I'm sure. Some further examples:
the opening sentence is awkward and doesn't clearly (simply) define what the article is about.
No need for zip code or area code information. Unless this is an article about a region, the weather info should go as well.
The term "fascinating geographically diverse area" is an opinion, and that phrase should be yanked. The description of a "sportsman's paradise" is also an opinion and specific point of view that is inappropriate for an unbiased article.
The sentence describing it as similar to the Black Hills needs a verifiable, unbiased, 3rdparty source to support that statement, otherwise that too would be deemed an opinion and should be removed. Information on the aquifer is misplaced in this article about the waterpark, as it should be placed in the region article instead.
These items are all from the opening two paragraphs, and later sections are similar in phrasing, full of WP:OR and opinion phrasing, and lack proper citations.SpikeJones (talk) 18:57, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's obvious the primary author has absolutely no feel for what Wikipedia is all about. This article was interesting to read but it should be on a personal website, not here. His defensiveness just adds to the malaise, though I can appreciate why he feels that way, since he obviously put in a lot of work. But it's just all wrong. I'd work on it myself but I don't see a lot of independent sources of information about this park on the Web. Free-world (talk) 13:58, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Whew. I cleaned it up from top to bottom as part of a copyediting drive. It's in much better shape now. It still needs inline references. There is a little bit of material in the external links that could be converted to inline references, but not a whole lot. Herostratus (talk) 07:17, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
April 20 2018
Update provided by the VP of OasisThemepark ( Lake Dolores)
oasisthemepark.com
Hi Thank you to whomever created this WikiPedia page.
You helped a great deal and more then you will ever know.
Lake Dolores had a lot of financial issues last time it was open so we wanted to make sure something like that can never happen again.
The way we set the funding up if anyone stole from us the thief would be stealing from the United States Government.
When JP Morgan Chase kept the funding for this project it stole from the United States Government. We had to be able to prove beyond
a shadow of a doubt this was true using the banks own words & actions. It took informing every branch of the United States Government to do it. We never expected to have to inform Congress a bank let along 5 stole from the United States economy & used the United States Courts to do it. Oh well the banks & their lawyers were warned, not our fault they didn't listen.
The Library of Congress tells you how to do this. We are not lawyers and don't give legal advice. This doesn't mean we don't
know the rules & laws of the United States and how to both follow and enforce them to protect ourselves.
Renovating & reopening Lake Dolores has never been about the money we could make. This has been about honoring the original builders
the Byers Family. We wanted to help people the same way they did. They helped people unconditionally & treated everyone like family.
Unfortunately we never met them in person. The way we met them was through the stories people told us about the Byers treated them.
This paragraph was recently added to this article by an anonymous user:
In mid-October of 2018, the abandoned park was the victim of arson, and many of the remaining buildings—The Lazy River Cafe and Arcade, were burned to the ground. Security officers are now on hand and turn visitors away.
I saw a video of the park on fire posted to a private Facebook group, so I know this is true. However I can not find a single news article about the vandalism/arson. Is anyone able to find a source for this so we can add a citation to the article?
The insider briefly mentions the arson saying that it destroyed the Lazy River Cafe and arcade. I added the citation to the article and cleaned up the entry in question to match the source as I haven't seen anything about other buildings being destroyed or what month it took place in. Dobblesteintalk18:46, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I see that the court case is mentioned where the employee won $4.4 million for his injurie, but that is all the information given. Does anyone else feel like that incident should be covered more in this article? Dobblesteintalk18:18, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
