Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Dallas, Texas/archive2

Dallas, Texas
Nominate and Support - The Dallas, Texas article has undergone huge amounts of renovations since its last candidacy including text & visual additions, pruning, format cleanup, sourcing, and updating of information. Not quite relevant to its own featured status, but hundreds of offshoot articles on specific areas/structures of the city have also been expanded vastly along with renovating the areas briefly mentioning them in the main article.. The article has also been designed to be pleasant on the eyes of viewers on many different screens, with special attention paid to images of a nicely-sized uniform width and formatting meant to keep wide-monitor-users from experiencing image clutter. See what you think... drumguy 8800 - speak? 01:54, 17 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment There are several locations where citations are needed. Some of those locations are pointed out with and others aren't. joturn e r 05:03, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I added seven references just now.. which also enabled me to add some other pertinent information. A few  s still exist.. I'll look in the handbook of texas later so I can add references to the history section.   drumguy 8800  - speak? 11:27, 17 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Object The article does not have 3(c) of WP:WIAFA- a substantial but not overwhelming table of contents. It also fails badly criteria 5- of appropriate length, staying tightly focused on the main topic without going into unnecessary detail. The article should have daughter articles- for example History of Dallas, Texas, that go into further detail, while the main article remains a summary on the topic. Verifiability seems a tiny bit weak also; there are 19 footnotes, and is a 52 kb article. One footnote is blank (as of now). Some more WP:CITE information can be added, including authors. Sections like "Architecture", "Education" (only 1 in the libraries), "Transportation", and "Sports" lack citations. AndyZ t 13:06, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Okay, I agree about the history section. Fixed the footnote, It was a reference that was used four times in the page and the definition was further down than the first instance.. fixed.  About to go make a history page..  drumguy 8800  - speak? 21:53, 17 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Object There are several sections that I wonder why are in the main article in the first place (Architecture, Districts and Communities). For the first section, it is merely repeating the corresponding subarticle while the second mentioned section is mostly lists (something that is frowned upon for featured articles. Use prose whenever possible). I suggest that these sections be merged into the geography section under "cityscape." Also, the section about highways isn't very useful in describing road-based transportation in Dallas (how are these highways laid out? Has there been any concerns about them? Is there anything special about these highways?), while at the same time not mentioning anything about other roads in the city. As a final note, there is no information about the government in Dallas, notably when it comes to the city's overall political scene. I suggest you look at other city FAs (e.g. Boston, Massachusetts, Canberra) for further ideas on improving this article. PentawingTalk 03:42, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Object for now. The article needs to follow Summary style. Geography seems to have a lot more content than the other sections. Also, apart from a couple of really large images, the Culture section dosen't have much content. Per, Wikiproject Cities, you will also need a "Law and government" section as well, at the very least. AreJay 23:13, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Object. Per above. Should follow Summary style and Template for a U.S. City.--Dwaipayanc 09:01, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment - Per WP:SS, I'm in the process of making subpages for most (if not all) major sections. I've already even made extensive subpages for subpages with the History of Dallas, Texas section.  If anything, this should be a learning experience  drumguy 8800  - speak? 03:24, 21 April 2006 (UTC)