The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted 18:32, 22 February 2007.

---

Houston, Texas[edit]

After discussing it with KP Botany, I've decided to reset this nom (previous FAC). Many of the problems brought up have been addressed, but there are some others outstanding. Raul654 18:03, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Gave this article a read, comparing it with the FA Seattle, Washington article. It's totally up there. Remaning problems which survived the last FACture are few, so I see little reason not to support this. Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 18:31, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support. I, having previously lived in Houston, agree with this article. It is mostly correct, with very few fallacies.--124.152.21.133 07:02, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Very few fallacies"? Can you expound on this statement? I supported the article last go-round and would be happy to support it again, but would like you to clarify this statement first. Thanks! --Jayzel 16:23, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment — I did compare this to the Seattle, Washington article and I found a few issues that prevent me from adding my support.
  • There is no mention of the city history in the lead. (See Wikipedia:Lead section.)
    • Founding/incorporation added Postoak 06:12, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The "Government and politics" seemed a little on the light side. Compare to the same section on the Seattle, Washington page. More than half of the section is actually focused on crime (specifically the Katrina-related crime rise), and there is little or no discussion of city politics.
    • Mostly moved to Politics of Houston when the article was being trimmed. Postoak 06:12, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Would like to note that the bulk of the crime statistics in the main article is actually text from the Demographics of Houston article, and was orginally located in that section.Deatonjr 21:31, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • The crime issue, while clearly notable, contains a lot of tactical detail. Similar details span only half a paragraph on the Seattle article. I'm not suggesting to get rid of it, but I wonder if there is a Katrina-related page somewhere that could cover the crime effects of the population displacement in more detail? (For example, "Social effects of Hurricane Katrina".)
        • Revised, Postoak 23:41, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • On a minor note, the illustration in the Demographics section appears only slightly related to the text. Perhaps the caption could be expanded?
    • Expanded Postoak 06:12, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nowhere does it mention Houston's smog problem. Wasn't Houston named the city with the dirtiest air in the U.S. in 1999?
    • Added to climate section. Postoak 06:54, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also why was it brought back for FAC if there are still outstanding problems from the previous cycle? Thanks. — RJH (talk) 16:32, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Raul agreed to reset the nom, as KP Botany felt most of his objections were fairly minor and shouldn't be too hard to deal with. Trebor 22:04, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Support — I'm pleased to change my preference to support after the edits. Thank you. — RJH (talk) 18:37, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you! Postoak 18:57, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. I really want to support, as this is better (in some cases much better) than the existing FAs on cities, but a few points remain. For starters, have all the points on KP Botany's extensive list been dealt with? Could The Houston metropolitan area is served by several radio and television stations. be turned into something more informative. Ref #120 is missing an accessdate. The fourth paragraph of the lead seems to be given undue weight to the visual and performing arts; perhaps it could summarise the whole of the "Culture" section. Keep up the good work. Trebor 22:04, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I removed the radio/TV sentence since they are in the "Further information" lists, Ref #120 fixed, the fourth paragraph of the lead was revised. Thanks, Postoak 18:23, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Many of KP Botany's issues were fixed, some have not. I (and hopefully some of the other editors) will review the list soon and verify that they were addressed. Thanks Postoak 18:32, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Okay, good job, I'll support after that. Trebor 18:40, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Please review the article and let me know how it looks. KP Botany's list is on my talk page. Thanks Postoak 04:29, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • Support. A great article which, to my eyes, meets the criteria. Trebor 15:33, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Yeah, it still needs attention to detail, but the editor, who is working on all the points I posted, needs more time--like me, someone with limited Wikipedia free time, that's all. KP Botany 23:52, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support You really did an excellent job fine-tuning this city article. KP Botany 19:11, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

KP Botany and Trebor, Thank you for your support! Postoak 00:00, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.