Wikipedia:Peer review/Texas Oil Boom/archive2

===Texas Oil Boom=== This peer review discussion has been closed. I've listed this article for peer review because it has passed GA and I'd like to push it forward to FA. Any advice and criticism is appreciated.
 * Previous peer review

Thanks, Mcorazao (talk) 23:19, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

—Mono·nomic 03:00, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
 * This will probably take me a while, since I have many comments for you. You can view my current progress at my sandbox if you like, but please don't change anything yet. I'll post my final comments here when I'm done, though, so you can just wait for them all at once if you like. —Mono·nomic 04:00, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
 * ✅ See below. —Mono·nomic 02:47, 24 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks so much! --Mcorazao (talk) 04:06, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

It is still open and located at Peer review/Texas Oil Boom/archive2.

Mononomic's peer review
This is an epically long review, and I apologize for that. I also occasionally use "you" or "your", and I'm not trying to criticize you, but just the article in general—you may have not even seen whatever sentence I'm talking about before, so don't take it personally or see it as specific directions. This is just my advice, and you shouldn't feel obligated to make any of the changes you see here unless you agree with them. Feel free to ask me questions for clarification on some of the items I've listed here; I know I can be somewhat wordy and confusing. I think that covers everything I wanted to prep you on—off we go!

General Notes
 * To begin, there are tons of places where I would put commas. It would take an immeasurable amount of time to write them out here and copy/paste the quotes, so just let me know and I'll make the changes on the page itself. Then you can go through and view the diff and see which ones you want to keep. Sound OK?
 * That's fine. --Mcorazao (talk) 04:06, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Also, in general, there are many sentences that just sound awkward. I've found that reading the article out loud (yes, someone could potentially hear you doing this) can help you catch weird sentence constructions or word choice very easily. I'd definitely recommend doing that.

Lead
 * "US History" probably does not need to be wikilinked. It's not important to the article: it's just a comparison.
 * Oklahoma just kind of pops in there in the first paragraph with "Oklahoma and Texas quickly became the leading oil producing states.." What significance does Oklahoma have? It maybe should be something like "Texas, along with similarly oil-rich states such as Oklahoma, quickly became leaders in United States oil production."
 * I'll look at a rephrase. I originally had this emphasizing Texas and it seemed to me I wasn't being NPOV. It took a while for Texas to firmly become the leading oil producer. --Mcorazao (talk) 04:06, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
 * "Strikes" could refer to sudden encounters of oil or labor strikes—be specific. Maybe wikilink to clarify?
 * "but soon reserves were found across Texas and wells were constructed" I think you mean "were", not "where".

Timeframe
 * "opening of the Corsicana oil field in 1894." This appears to be an important event, if you're mentioning it as the beginning of the Oil Boom. Go in to more detail and describe the context of the event.
 * I was trying to keep the Timeframe section as short as possible. I originally had it shorter but was advised that I wasn't being NPOV. I almost took the whole section out but I felt like it was important to explicitly describe the time period we were talking about. Still, though, I don't want to expand the section by going into more detail there regarding each event. I'm not sure what a better way to deal with this is. --Mcorazao (talk) 04:06, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I understand your viewpoint. Maybe you could just wikilink "Corsicana" and leave the rest alone for now? That way it still would have its due weight (by linking to the Corsicana article) but not overpower the rest of the section. —Mono·nomic 15:10, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
 * "The Spindletop strike of 1901 is considered by most historians as the beginning point because the event launched the pattern of development that led to Texas becoming the national and international leader of the oil industry." Again, more context here. You don't need to go into the conclusion as much ("... becoming the national and international leader of the oil industry") since the reader will discover that later in the article. Instead, describe the conditions and how the event was perceived; how the mentality of the oil drillers changed with the Spindletop strike.
 * Same deal. I don't want to make the Timeframe section longer. Is it better just to take the section out? --Mcorazao (talk) 04:06, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
 * And same reply! Maybe wikilink to the Spindletop article, history section. —Mono·nomic 15:10, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
 * "Roaring 20s" wikilink is somewhat unnecessary—the culture of the 1920s and the characteristics of the time period are not important, though the actual date and logistics are.
 * Also, maybe give an example of one of these small towns that went through one of these roller-coaster oil economies.

Background (Post-Civil-War Texas)
 * I'm pretty sure the title of this section should be "Post-Civil War Texas", without that second hyphen. I may be wrong, though, so check with your preferred manual of style.
 * "Cattle ranching and cotton became major enterprises..." Cotton what—cotton farming? Cotton processing? Cotton shipping? Cotton investing? Cotton corn-on-the-cob? Be specific.

Background (Early history of petroleum)
 * This section seems to be a bit broad. You may want to just refer to the history of petroleum in the context of Texas, and not go into all of the detail with Azerbaijan, Pennsylvania, etc.
 * Actually I thought the opposite. The entire background section can be skipped entirely (the title is intended to imply that). The idea here was to actually help the reader understand the full impact of these events. Had all of these prevents previous events not occurred the boom in Texas would not have occurred the way it did and/or would not have had the same sort of impact on the state and the U.S. I'll look at trying to be more terse, though. --Mcorazao (talk) 04:06, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
 * OK then, I'd keep the section clearly defined between Texan and worldwide history. You can use a hatnote and selectively summarize parts of History of petroleum, then start a new paragraph, and begin "Texans knew of the oil that lay beneath the ground..." Or that's what I would do, at least. —Mono·nomic 15:10, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
 * "In the 1850s the process to distill kerosene from petroleum  was invented by Abraham Gesner": change from passive to active voice, currently comma problem (this will be fixed if you move to active voice)
 * Wikilink "whale oil"?
 * "The demand for the petroleum as a fuel for lighting in North America and around the world quickly grew." How did it grow? Why did it grow? Because of the increased use of lighting? Because of a lack of whale oil (whatever the heck that is)?
 * "... drilling process to extract oil from deep within the earth." This deep within the earth is not specific. From pockets in the earth's crust? From below where humans could previously reach (30 feet or so, perhaps)? You don't have to write a technical paper, but you do have to give me some more detail if you're going to take the time and mention it.
 * "Drake's invention is credited with giving birth to the oil industry in the U.S." Isn't that lovely? Yes, it is, for an article about Edwin Drake. This is an article about the Texas Oil Boom. If there was some context that related the invention itself with the economic growth of Texas (besides it was used as a tool), maybe like a trip in 1881 when Drake was selling them in huge numbers in Texas (I'm making this up here, just an example) then it would be notable in this paragraph.
 * The Texas boom would never have happened in the timeframe it did without Drake's invention. --Mcorazao (talk) 04:06, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
 * The Texas boom would never have happened in the timeframe it did without the lightbulb, the telegraph, reinforced concrete, the printing press... You have to mention how Drake's invention was notable. Drake's Wikipedia article says that he was "popularly credited with being the first to drill for oil in the United States". I think this states his notability and relevance more clearly than being "credited with giving birth to the oil industry in the U.S." Does that make sense? —Mono·nomic 15:10, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Point taken. I'll rephrase. For what it's worth part of the point of this was to dispell the myth some people have that the U.S. oil industry started in Texas. Texas rose to the top of the industry not primarily because of early ingenuity but because of an overwhelming pocket of reserves and good port locations (as well as lax regulatory standards). --Mcorazao (talk) 16:05, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
 * "The first oil refiner in the United States opened in 1861 in Western Pennsylvania, during the Pennsylvanian oil rush. Standard Oil, which had been founded by John D. Rockefeller in Ohio, became a multi-state trust and came to dominate the young oil industry in the U.S." See previous note. This isn't a section on the history of petroleum: it's a section on the Texan history of petroleum.
 * Standard Oil was an important factor in the Texas oil industry and the U.S. oil industry as a whole. It can't be left out if one is to have a serious discussion of oil in any part of the U.S. I'll see if there is some way to abbreviate, though. --Mcorazao (talk) 04:06, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I think once you make the distinction between worldwide and Texas petroleum history with that paragraph break I mentioned before, then this sentence will be relevant. Of course, abbreviating is always good, too. —Mono·nomic 15:10, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
 * "Texans knew of the oil that lay beneath the ground in the state for decades..." Change the order of this sentence:
 * For decades, Texans had known of the oil that lay beneath the ground, but this was often...


 * "Despite the negative associations with oil among many ranchers and farmers, demand for kerosene and other petroleum derivatives drove oil prospecting in Texas after the American Civil War , both at known oil-producing springs and accidental finds while drilling for water." Hopefully this will make this sentence clearer.

Background (Mechanization)
 * While this section is certainly interesting, it would probably be best to condense it and merge it to the appropriate chronological point in the previous section, Early history of petroleum. Try to cut down on the history of the automobile, and instead try to use the following phrase (or similar) to slim down the paragraph so you can merge it:
 * As a byproduct the work of engineer Karl Benz's Benz Patent Motorwagen, the United States leapfrogged into a petroleum age when Henry Ford refined the concept of mechanical mass production, which made the automobile both popular and available in the United States.


 * OK, I'll look at abbreviating. --Mcorazao (talk) 04:06, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
 * The image in this section (of the 1908 Ford Model T) seems to be of fairly low quality. Consider if the encyclopedic value outweighs the quality downside.

Growth of "Big Oil" (Spindletop)
 * "Gladys City Oil, Gas, and Manufacturing Company was joined in 1899 by Croatian/Austrian mechanical engineer" Joined in? The sentence construction makes it sound like he founded or started the company. Switch to the active voice ("Anthony Lucas began working for the Gladys City, Oil, Gas, and Manufacturing company in 1899 after years of failed attempts...")
 * "Lucas joined the company in response to the numerous ads the company’s founder Pattillo Higgins placed in industrial magazines and trade journals." Is this section about the impact of industrial magazines and trade journals? Or is it about what Lucas' discoveries at Spindletop? I'd remove this sentence.
 * "... struggled for two years to find oil at a location known as Spindletop Hill before making a strike..." You can add some information on location here, or maybe why it's called Spindletop Hill (if relevant), but "at a location known as" is wordy.
 * "The level of oil speculation in Pennsylvania and other areas of the United States was quickly surpassed by the speculation in Texas." Change to the active voice:
 * The presence of speculation in Texas quickly skyrocketed past that of oil speculation in Pennsylvania and other areas.

Growth of "Big Oil" (Discoveries spread)
 * "In the early years a few major finds led to easy availability and major drops in prices, but were followed by limited exploration and a sudden spike in prices as production dwindled." This sentence makes it sound like it was a one-time occurrence: that is, prices dropped, then they rose, and that was the end of that. Make it clear that this was cyclical and happening all the time (or not, if I'm wrong, so clarify it however necessary).
 * You use the phrase "substantial industrialization" multiple times in this paragraph. Try to explain how this manifests itself in the newly-industrialized communities.
 * "... discovered the East Texas Oil Field, the largest oil discovery that had ever been made." You may want to give a comparison that explains exactly how big this discovery was. For instance (again, all facts and figures are made up):
 * ... discovered the East Texas Oil Field, which would soon become one of the most productive drills to date, with six million barrels per day, or 17 times the average site.


 * At the time I wrote this I didn't find any statistics to indicate comparative scale. I'll look harder. --Mcorazao (talk) 04:06, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Don't work yourself up over it, but do try to provide at least what kind of "largest" this is: most barrels per day, largest repository, greatest profits, etc. to quantify this factoid. —Mono·nomic 15:10, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
 * "Because East Texas had not been significantly explored for oil before then, numerous independent prospectors, known as " wildcatters " , were..." (remove quotes and "then")
 * "Overproduction in East Texas was so great that then-governor Ross Sterling attempted to shut down many of the wells. During one of the forced closures he ordered the Texas National Guard to enforce the shutdown." (combine these sentences:)
 * Overproduction in East Texas was so great that then-governor Ross Sterling attempted to shut down many of the wells, even using the Texas National Guard as enforcement during the Jingleheimer shutdown.


 * "... intervened and brought production to sustainable levels leading to a stabilization of price fluctuation." Can you explain how they did this? Was it through a bill or a law passed? Which branch of the federal government did this?
 * "... to be more fully explored and exploited." Usually exploited has a negative connotation. If you're trying to convey some injustice that occurred at this time, explain it more. Otherwise, explored and exploited is redundant, and you should probably remove the second.
 * Hmmm, I guess I don't interpret either of those terms the way you do. Exploring and explotation to me are completely separate issues (exploration does not imply to me actually finding anything). Explotation is a very commonly used term in economics and industry and does not carry a negative connotation in those circles. I have only heard of exploitation have a negative association when applied to people or sometimes animals or the environment. I'll try to look for different wording ... --Mcorazao (talk) 04:06, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree. And technically, exploited shouldn't have that connotation in general use, but I think a different word choice here would make this more clear. I know I had a knee-jerk reaction when I saw "exploited" in a section about oil profiteering, and especially at the end of a paragraph (there's no mention of anything particularly negative, though), makes it a little unclear. If anything, just to clear up some NPOV issues, changing this word would make me breathe a little easier. —Mono·nomic 15:10, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Growth of "Big Oil" (Emergence of an industry)
 * "... acquired by Standard Oil of New York, built the first modern refinery west of the Mississippi River." You might want to mention again that it was at Corsicana, because the break between the two sentences caught me off guard.
 * "Texas Company and then renamed Texaco, ." (period, not a comma)
 * "... Standard Oil of New Jersey and established a long-term partnership that lasted for decades." If the relationship has ended, you could mention why it ended. If it still exists today, then use a different phrase (like "that still lasts today") instead.
 * "By the late 1920s ten companies produced more than half of the oil in the state..." Although this isn't really policy to the best of my knowledge, I would be inclined to wikilink the names of the companies in the list that follows that sentence. It seems to be a generally good reference place for these major companies during the Oil Boom. Alternatively, you could place a list in the infobox (I'm not sure what parameters that would be set up for, but "Major parties" or "Major contenders" or something like that could work).
 * Well, I'm not sure that these 10 were the largest throughout most of the boom so putting them up front would probably be misleading. Maybe putting them in a table with links and remove the list from the prose? --Mcorazao (talk) 04:06, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Good point—if the source only says that they produced more than half of the oil in the state during the late 1920s, then it wouldn't be fair to have those up front. I personally wouldn't have thought of a table, but give it a try and see how it looks. If you're not crazy about that, then the wikilinks might be a nice alternative. —Mono·nomic 15:10, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Effects (Economy)
 * I'm not crazy about the image here, since it seems to be more focused on the building's design than on the company itself. I would be inclined to post a section on the talk page and discuss its place in this article.
 * Well, the goal was not to include this image. The goal was to fill in a hole where an image was needed. Ideally it would be nice to put some sort of chart reflecting economic trends but I don't have any such chart. Do you think it is preferable to have no image there? --Mcorazao (talk) 04:06, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
 * If you can give me some concrete information (from a book or something reliable) then I could make a vector graph to stick in here, something like those at the beginning of Great Depression. Otherwise, I'd remove the image. —Mono·nomic 15:10, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
 * "This was changed by the boom which led to rapid industrialization." Why were agriculture, timber, and ranching insufficient in driving industrialization forward in Texas at this time? Or did they just pale in comparison to what riches oil would soon bring?
 * Two things: 1) Oil brought in unparalleled revenue, and at least as important 2) it was desirable to have factories both near a major port and a major supply a fuel and the Texas coast fit the bill nicely. I'll look at making this more clear. --Mcorazao (talk) 04:06, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
 * That makes sense, and I think making this more clear in the article would be a good idea. —Mono·nomic 15:10, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
 * "... the Port of Houston overtaking the Port of Galveston as the state's dominant seaport.[51] The situation led Houston to also overtake Galveston as the primary shipping center for cotton." Combine into one sentence:
 * ... the Port of Houston overtaking the Port of Galveston as the state's dominant seaport, and shortly after, the primary shipping center for cotton as well.


 * "By the 1930s Houston had emerged as the state's dominant economic center, though it continued to compete with Dallas throughout the 1900s." I don't understand this sentence. Did it continue to compete with Dallas throughout the 20th century? Or throughout the 1900s (1900-1909)? If the latter, I'd remove the parts after the comma—they just serve to confuse.
 * I'll change to "throughout the 20th century." --Mcorazao (talk) 15:06, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
 * "The effects of the boom helped offset the effects of the Depression so much that Houston was called the 'city the Depression forgot.'[55] Dallas and other Texas communities were also able to weather the Depression better than many American cities because of oil." Combine into one sentence that describes Houston's effect on the entire state:
 * The effects of the boom helped offset the effects of the Depression in Houston, and the economically-connected Dallas and other surrounding communities, so much that Houston was called the "city the Depression forgot."


 * Well, combining in that way would be WP:OR. I would argue that it is true that Houston's success was a major factor in the success of other cities in Texas but I know of no source that actually says this. I'll see if I can abbreviate in a different way. --Mcorazao (talk) 15:06, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Effects (Demographics)
 * My eyes basically gloss over the first two paragraphs in this section. It may be more efficient to convey this information as a table or chart, since it really difficult to read so many numbers in sentences, especially when they're just listed one after another. At this point, it's not statistics, it's just raw data. I'd make a table and include a few (like one or two) examples from it, and then go on to talk about the effects of the crash, again talking about one or two specific examples.
 * I'll look at making a table. --Mcorazao (talk) 15:06, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Effects (Urban development)
 * Image needs a period at the end of that caption (it's a complete sentence)
 * "The Peristein Building in Beaumont was the first skyscraper built as a direct result of the boom." When was it built? Specify so you can infer that it was a direct result—and even there, you'll have a hard time, because there's a difference between correlation and causation.
 * Note. It's Perlstein and with 6 floors is was not really a skyscraper pic on flickr.. Source says "assisted further by the oil boom of 1901, he [H. Perlstein spelled as Peristein] built Beaumont’s first ‘skyscraper’ in 1907" (curiously all web copies of this text make the same typo). It appears that it burnt down during WW2. NVO (talk) 20:40, 25 March 2010 (UTC)


 * "After a second major strike at Spindletop in 1925, Beaumont had the largest skyline of any city between Houston and New Orleans by the end of the decade." There are two references to time in this sentence: After a second major strike at Spindletop in 1925 and by the end of the decade, which is confusing. Choose just one; otherwise you'll have your readers spinning around in circles.
 * "... already established... " should probably be hyphenated
 * "... allowing the Port of Houston's to service large ships"—this shouldn't be possessive: the Port of Houston to service...
 * You repeatedly refer to Houston as becoming the state's leading city: in the 1910s, the 1920s, and the 1930s. Did it lose its title at one point? If not, it's just repetitive to keep saying this. Just mention somewhere in the paragraph (or elsewhere in the article or section) something like:
 * For nearly six decades, Houston has been the center of economic growth, rail transit, marine shipping, and square dancing.


 * "The effects of the petroleum-related growth helped offset the effects of the Depression substantially, particularly after the discovery of the East Texas field." There's an extra quote in this sentence (see its placement in the article) and it's repetitive—you already talked about this in the Effects (Economy) section, so remove it.
 * Wikilink University of Houston?
 * Wait, now Dallas and Fort Worth are major financial centers too?! You might want to cut out all of this interpretation and just deal with the facts: 90% of banks were based here, 78% of Texas' marine shipping originated here, etc. instead of leaving it up to these kind of ambiguous names like "financial center" or similar. Just a thought...
 * The sources I have read do not provide these sorts of hard facts. Their statements are more interpretive than concrete. Part of the point here was to indicate that, whereas at the turn of the century one might have had a hard time guessing which were going to be the major cities in Texas, by the end of the boom DFW and Houston were the clear leaders. San Antonio and Paso had fallen behind. Galveston had fallen way behind. I'll have to think about how to rephrase. Hmmm ... --Mcorazao (talk) 15:06, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Effects (Education)
 * Maybe give some facts/figures about Texan university endowments or budgets? (Adjusted for today's dollars and dollars back then too)
 * I didn't see these facts at the time but I'm sure that sort of info must be readily available somewhere. --Mcorazao (talk) 15:06, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
 * "Primary and secondary education improved as well though the extreme growth in the new boomtowns initially caused severe strain on school systems unprepared for the rapid influx of students." Run-on/otherwise difficult-to-read sentence
 * Get rid of the italics on "independent school districts"

Effects (Government and politics)
 * Take "carpetbaggers" out of quotes
 * "The mistrust of Standard Oil was partially the result of a mistrust of "carpetbaggers," which ironically was also the source of mistrust of labor unions." I don't understand this sentence—was the mistrust the source for the mistrust for labor unions? Or were the carpetbaggers themselves the source for mistrust of labor unions? Also, you use "mistrust" three times in one sentence—consider revising that.
 * The focal point was intended to be "carpetbaggers". In other words both Standard Oil and labor unions were seen as Yankee influence. I'll rephrase. --Mcorazao (talk) 15:06, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
 * "... promoting African Americans..." What do you mean here? By giving them rights and a job? By getting them involved in politics? Be more specific.
 * "... the situation this created..." What situation did "this" create?

Effects (Culture)
 * "...mid 20th century" should be mid-20th century.
 * Wikilink Wildcatter?
 * I only didn't so as not to link the same term more than once. --Mcorazao (talk) 15:06, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
 * "... once published the following remark." This sentence should end with a colon, not a period (.) to set off a block quote. There also shouldn't be a quotation mark (") at the end of that block quote. Do you have a citation for it, though? Put it as a reference after the byline if you do.
 * Actually the MOS says that the citation is supposed to go at the end of the sentence that introduces it, not at the end of the byline (I used to do the latter until it was pointed out I was doing it wrong). --Mcorazao (talk) 15:06, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Maybe some of the information from that condensed Mechanization section would fit here, in the paragraph about car culture.
 * I'll respectfully disagree. The stuff in the Mechanization section is not specific to Texas because it is part of the "Background". But it would be off-topic to go into all of that in this section. Apart from that it is true that the cause and effect went both ways to some extent but I think it is more clear to discuss these things separately. --Mcorazao (talk) 15:06, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
 * "Vice" seems almost religious or moral, which would be judgmental for an encyclopaedia. Try "illicit activity" or "illegal activity" instead, and remove the wikilink.
 * Hmmm ... the thing is these things were not always illegal and to use the term illegal covers a much wider range of activities than vice. Illicit has a similar problem and, to me, carries much more of a judgemental tone to it. Vice is a fairly standard term used by law enforcement and in sociopolitical circles with a relatively well-defined meaning. When I have seen the term used in this type of context it has not conveyed a moral judgement. Nevertheless I'll see if I can figure out some sort of synonym or rephrasing that would be more clear. --Mcorazao (talk) 15:06, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Effects (Environment)
 * "Although from the outset of the oil boom there were efforts at conservation and protection of the environment, they generally enjoyed little success." (Change though to although)
 * "... but created unnecessary environmental contamination with the numerous oil strikes." Stick to NPOV here.
 * ? The point of the sentence was to say that it was unnecessary (which the sources support). It is rather obvious that oil drilling would cause environmental damage. The issue was that if the early prospecting had been more regulated the same amount of oil could have been extracted with far less waste and contamination. It's not a POV issue. This is fact. I'll look at clarifying ... --Mcorazao (talk) 15:06, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Maybe mention what was done (or was there anything done?) about the environmental impact, even in later years. Wikilink profusely here if you decide to add that information.
 * There was a lot that was done but I was trying to stay on topic. Since the article is already long I didn't want to go too far out on a limb. I'll think about maybe something terse that can be stated about later cleanup ... --Mcorazao (talk) 15:06, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Also some reference in the photo's caption about the haze or pollution that can be seen, like:
 * False-color satellite photograph of Galveston Bay showing the area's heavily polluted waters


 * To be honest I don't know what specifically in the photo is pollution and what is just coloring that looks like pollution. I wanted to avoid comment since I don't have the facts. --Mcorazao (talk) 15:06, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Effects (After the gushers)
 * I don't seem to understand the title of this section. Maybe make it something more generic, like "Aftermath" or "Later years"?
 * Hmmm ... well, in my mind, by definition, the gushers were part of what defined the oil boom. In other words, initially you could just poke a little ways into the ground and get a flood of oil. As the easy reserves were tapped the gushers subsided and the wildcat prospecting went away. So the period after that would be "after the gushers". I thought it was catchy but I guess not ... --Mcorazao (talk) 15:06, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
 * "By the 1940s production in the East Texas Oil Field and oil prices stabilized." It seems like you're missing a verb here, because it sounds like "East Texas Oil Field and oil prices" is one big noun. Maybe production leveled off in the East Texas Oil Field...?
 * The subject is "production in the East Texas Oil Field and oil prices". But I agree it is badly phrased. Will redo. --Mcorazao (talk) 15:06, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Be consistent with your capitalization throughout the entire article (especially with map directions!). You may want to even consult the Manual of Style to see whether it should be "Western Texas" or "western Texas", because you do this in other sections as well.
 * Take "energy crisis" out of italics
 * Is "benefitting" misspelled?
 * "... U.S. that faced recession during this time." What kind of recession? Economic recession? Hair recession?
 * "Some sources, in fact, use the phrase Texas Oil Boom to refer to this later period instead of the oil-drilling frenzy that occurred just before." Be sure to be specific!

Iconic figures of the era (The big four)
 * "H. Roy Cullen" in the caption should probably be "Hugh Roy Cullen". I'd also make it smaller, and consider making a request at the Graphic Lab to have the glare removed from that picture—it is distracting.
 * "Four businessmen were emblematic of the 1920s and 1930s '  boom years..." Keep it as 1930s', with that apostrophe to make it possessive.
 * This section is just a summary of the four men's Wikipedia articles. Consider removing it or combining their names and accomplishments in the appropriate article sections. This would be a pretty drastic change, so make sure to discuss it on the talk page and reach a consensus (let me know and I'll be happy to voice my opinions!)
 * Hmmmm, ... my thoughts:
 * Mentioning these people only in the other sections rather dilutes the point that they were iconic figures.
 * Some of the details about them as iconic would be inappropriate to include in the other sections (i.e. too much detail for those other sections).
 * I tend to like sections like this which give you an explicit idea of who were the major players in a historical period without your having to glean that information from a long discussion of the history.
 * Anyway, I'll ask for feedback.
 * --Mcorazao (talk) 15:06, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Iconic figures of the era (Other icons)
 * See the notes for the previous section, otherwise everything seems to be OK here.

In popular culture
 * I don't see how the mention of Texan stereotypes fits in with this section. Consider removing it.
 * I don't understand your point. Stereotypes are by definition popular culture. I suspect perhaps you are making the mistake of interpreting the phrase in the way a lot of WP editors tend to use it. That is, your typical, badly written WP article (which hopefully doesn't describe mine) uses "popular culture" to mean movies and pop songs exclusively. But popular culture can refer to any shared experiences among the population which includes beliefs and attitudes that pervade any media or even everyday conversation. --Mcorazao (talk) 15:06, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
 * This is one of the nicest, least trivia-like "In popular culture" sections I've ever seen. Nicely done.

Conclusion Wow, what an article. I hope these comments make sense. I've tried to watch out for NPOV in the article so it can reach FA status, but it's kind of slipped my mind sometimes when trying to look for grammar and clarity. Try to keep the article only as long as needed, because you'll lose your readership when people see that it's such a long article (heck, even the References section is huge!) Feel free to ask me any other questions you may have about this review or other changes you'd like to discuss. If you thought this review was helpful, please consider reviewing another article through Wikipedia's Peer Review (especially one from the backlog—that's where I found this one). Good luck! —Mono·nomic 02:47, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks so much for all of the hard work. For what it is worth, because of the length and all of the material that I wanted to cover I intentionally wrote the article in a smorgasbord fashion. That is, I don't expect most readers to read the whole article. As such the sections are mostly not chronological or all that interdependent. They are written to be somewhat self-contained so that you can pick and choose what interests you and skip the rest. My goal is not to get people to read the entire article but that they get something meaningful out of it. I'll look at tightening up the prose, though, for better readability. --Mcorazao (talk) 15:06, 24 March 2010 (UTC)