Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Dallas, Texas/archive3

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Dallas, Texas

Well referenced, excellent History subpage (though that isn't what's being considered), well referenced, good images. Isn't overbearingly long, following Summary Style with several subpages (and sub-subpages). drumguy8800 C T 22:07, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

• Strong Support. Very informative article with lots of great pictures. --Longhornsg 22:16, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
• Mild object. Refs go after punctuation, not before it and not in the middle of a sentence. Rlevse 16:43, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
  • All fixed. drumguy8800 C T 10:12, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
    • Better, but see the Peer Review I left on the talk page--several of them are actionable. I fixed several items for you in the article. Sorry I didn't notice this before, but the refs are not in meta cite.php format, which is preferred. Also, a 2-para lead is too short for a 77K article, it should be at least 3 paras. Rlevse 12:46, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
      • I started writing this for a third paragraph:

Dallas in a larger context is seen as right-wing politically, with a heavy cultural emphasis placed on Protestant Christianity and close historical and cultural ties to both the rugged American West and agricultural South. The popular television series Dallas bolstered this view epitomizing the city with wealthy oil barrons, big hair and cowboy hats. Dallas however lies roughly at the center of the political spectrum,^[1]

And I became lost on how to finish it. I was going to start talking about the Hispanic population in the city (about 1/3 the population) and mexican/tex-mex & barbecue or something.. and maybe incorporate the DCVB's motto "Dallas: Live large, thing big." thing to tie it back to.. the beginning of the paragraph. I don't know, I looked to other cities on what to add to the lead. Any ideas? drumguy8800 C T 07:04, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

• Comment. The first paragraphs of the "History" section are under-citated.--Yannismarou 18:40, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Transfered corresponding references from the History of Dallas, Texas article. drumguy8800 C T 19:07, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
    • Support.--Yannismarou 19:14, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

• Comment. Extremely undercited. I started tagging facts and tourist-bureau sounding promo statements that needed citation, but stopped after finding quite a few. The fancruft, touristy stuff sounds like original research, and needs to be removed or cited; there is a lot that needs to be cited - I tagged only some. Sandy (Talk) 20:37, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
  • I added 17 19 29 references to the article and removed the annoying unverifiable bits (especially about Dallas Cowboys); they covered the things you selected and some more bits around Culture. I'll add some more tonight to other lacking areas of the article.. You tagging them was good incentive to get it cleaned up though thanks. drumguy8800 C T 03:10, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

• Comment. "It was a fairly insignificant place" is in my opinion poorly worded, and I don't think "insignificant" requires a Wiktionary link. Also, does the cityscape section follow general Wikipedia style? It seems a bit choppy. Other than that, it seems a well-referenced and thorough article, written with a very good prose style. Seegoon 15:26, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Fixed. drumguy8800 C T 17:09, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
    • Support. Seegoon 17:12, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
• Object Support...

1. Comprehensiveness:
   1. "Native Americans inhabited the Dallas area before it was claimed". What Native Americans? The History subarticle doesn't mention anything either. See the Early history section of History of Nashville, Tennessee for example.
   2. If you're going to make me read trivia about how many times Dallasites eat out an how many restaurants the city has, you should at least make it interesting by telling me what they eat. What signature foods is Dallas known for? Otherwise, I would remove the paragraph entirely.
2. Awkward writing (i.e. not "brilliant prose"):
   1. "The Republic of Texas broke off from Mexico in 1836 (and remained an independent country for nearly 10 years); and this is when Dallas's development began."
   2. "oil industry companies" is redundant.
   3. "The city itself has historically been white".
   4. "Some areas known especially for the local art and culture include: The Arts District of downtown is home...". Bad grammar.
3. Focus:
   1. We don't need to know about Robert Noyce independently inventing the integrated circuit in California to understand the history of Dallas. Leave that for the integrated curcuit article.

Kaldari 22:26, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Resolved. drumguy8800 C T 02:10, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

• Object—1a. Poorly written.
  • "The area was very close to French territory, but the boundary of the Spanish-speaking territory was moved upward a bit in 1819 with the Adams-Onís Treaty." "Very" is weak (undefinable amplifier—adds nothing). "A bit" is in the same class, and is too informal for this register.
  • "the nation's exitance"—Nice one.
  • "miles" ... what are they?
  • "annexed into"—I think it should be "by" (am I correct?)
  • "It is speculated that it (and the city)"—clumsy repetition; what does the second "it" refer to? (Could be one of two back-referents.) Tony 02:13, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

PS Don't just fix these points; the whole text needs a serious copy-edit by an editor who's unfamiliar with it (fresh eyes). Tony 02:14, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

• Object per Tony. The prose looks and reads quite fragmented. I also suggest reducing the number of pictures (leave that job to Commons), shortening the contents box and reducing the number of schools, parks, universities that you list - "summarize" information with cohesive writing. Also, I suggest defering more information to suitable forks. Rama's arrow 19:02, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
  • I also think the number of pictures is a bit excessive. No section should have more than 2 pictures at the most. Kaldari 02:33, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

• Object. Refer to Peer review.

  While it's nice there are a lot of photos, most of them are of poor quality and not necessary for illustrating the article.

  THe Dallas Morning News cover also needs a fair use rationale.

  Furthermore, the See Also lines should be at the top of a section, not at the end, to follow WP:GTL.

  Why is the budget of the city given at 10 significant figures for each individual year since 2002?

  Too many lists masquerading as prose, e.g.- companies headquarted in Dallas in Economy; sports teams in Sports; most of Health and Medicine, Transportation, Television Stations; a lot more. For example - "Notable venues include...(list of 5 items)" This tells me nothing about either the city of Dallas nor about the venue mentioned in the list.

  Is that big chart with the state and federal representatives really necessary?

  "Dallas is home to several significant events throughout the year." This sentence is filler. The section is titled "Events", so I'm already expecting to be told about significant events in Dallas.

  Prose is not "brilliant"

--DaveOinSF 01:19, 26 October 2006 (UTC)