Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Dallas, Texas/archive1
Self-nomination. Do you agree with this nomination? This is to let everyone know such an important city. 202.40.210.164 08:03, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Object. I only gave it a quick scan, but the People of Dallas section stood out as a weakness, both in writing and in citation. Where is this information coming from? The Other Facts is rather...inclusive. The history is rather scattershot, and needs to be collected into one section. And, correct me if I'm wrong, but that is one hell of a lead, about five grafs long, much of it the aforementioned misplaced history. Needs a bit of a work. Khanartist 08:19, 2005 Jan 14 (UTC)
- Reluctant object: There's a lot of work here and it seems to be very complete and thorough in content, at least to one who has never been there. But the information seems a little disjointed and needs to be better brought together under each section heading. There are many statements such as "Dallasites are said to consider themselves more sophisticated than those in other parts of Texas" which need to be supported. And "Because Dallas and Houston are the two major economic centers of Texas, they enjoy a friendly rivalry" an example or two of this rivalry would be useful. I would have liked to have seen some written references in addition to internet links. Are the residents of Dallas really called Dallasites? (it sounds a little unfortunate to a European ear!) but if that's what they're called so be it. I'm sure the writer knows Dallas well, but he has to prove to those who don't that what is written is true. Giano 09:27, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Object. Not as it is. I want this to become a featured article eventually, but the article needs a lot of work. The second half of the article is entirely lists and much of it shouldn't be. For example, it needs a full-blown history section, not just a list of important dates. I've been trying to get the ball rolling on a rewrite, but it's not there yet. RADICALBENDER★ 22:47, Jan 14, 2005 (UTC)
- If its still on PNA it really shouldn't be here, no?--ZayZayEM 01:10, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)