Talk:Dallas/GA1

What is a good article?
The Dallas article failed the following listed criteria of WP:WIAGA.

1. It is well written. In this respect:
 * (a) it has compelling prose, and is readily comprehensible to non-specialist readers;
 * (b) it follows a logical structure, introducing the topic and then grouping together its coverage of related aspects; where appropriate, it contains a succinct lead section summarising the topic, and the remaining text is organised into a system of hierarchical sections (particularly for longer articles);
 * (c) it follows the Wikipedia Manual of Style;

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable. In this respect:
 * (a) it provides references to any and all sources used for its material;
 * (c) sources should be selected in accordance with the guidelines for reliable sources;

3. It is broad in its coverage, addressing all major aspects of the topic (this requirement is slightly weaker than the "comprehensiveness" required by WP:FAC, and allows shorter articles and broad overviews of large topics to be listed);.

The Copyeditor 03:00, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Can you explain please? Thanks Jaranda wat's sup 03:53, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

This article has some "citation needed" tag throughout the article. I am not saying it lacks sources, but there are claims that need to have references. The lead section does not summarize the article at all. All there is in the lead section is how big Dallas and its metropolitan area are. Overall, lead section is does not have any breadth on Dallas and is too short for an article of its size. The article body is not "broad in its coverage". The government section is a stub and doesn't have anything about the city's politics. This section is incomplete. The economy section doesn't really say anything about the city's economy&mdash;it's past, present, and future. All there is in the economy section is what companies are located in Dallas and its metro area. Is this enough explanation Jaranda? The Copyeditor 04:13, 29 May 2006 (UTC)