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 not promoted 00:11, 11 February 2007.

---

Houston, Texas[edit]

After many months of work, we feel that this article is ready for featured article status. Thank you, Postoak 01:38, 9 January 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

First FAC, for archival purposes. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:27, 9 January 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment looks good. I've only done a quick reading. Will give it a more thorough look tomorrow, but I think I will be supporting. Regards, --Jayzel 02:03, 9 January 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Strong Support The article shines and is well referenced and appropriately cited. Regards, --Jayzel 03:13, 12 January 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Object

1.Image:Houston grid system.jpg, Image:Houston streets 1942.jpg, Image:MainStreetHouston1864.jpg have no source information.

Fixed Removed images and replaced with PD image. Postoak 05:20, 9 January 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

2. The image Image:Houston City Hall Ariel.jpg is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial license, which is not an acceptable license for Wikipedia.

Fixed Removed image. Looking for a replacement. Postoak 05:20, 9 January 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

3. The image Image:Houston freeway 002.jpg is claimed as "fair use", but is reasonably replaceable and does not contribute significantly to the article. It needs to be removed.

Fixed Removed image Postoak 05:20, 9 January 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

--Carnildo 04:53, 9 January 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment I'm moving to Houston in the next two weeks, so this article was of particular interest to me, but I do have several concerns.

• The intro feels very choppy with little natural transition in the LEAD.
• The history reads like a series of evens "In XXXX this happened" and "By XXXX this happened." There are 3 consecutive setences begining with the word "By."

Changed that instance. Ufwuct 15:38, 10 January 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• MD Anderson should be wikilinked---if there isn't an article on them, there should be, they are one of the countries premier medical facilities for cancer. (Create the link, you don't have to create the article.)

It appears to be wikilinked already at Houston, Texas#Healthcare and medicine. Ufwuct 05:30, 10 January 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Personal preference, I'd like to see the history section broken into subgroups that are more digestable. But that isn't required.

The history section was in subgroups for (I think) over a year. It was only very recently changed to one large section and this was because of comments from a peer review that suggested we have one large history section. Ufwuct 15:38, 10 January 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• "Tends to feel still" unencyclopedic.

Reworded by User:Ufwuct

• "Temperature peaks at 94"--So it never goes above 94? That isn't even true in Denver.

Changed to reflect that the average peaks at 94. Ufwuct 15:38, 10 January 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• "Afternoon rains are common and for most summer days, Houston meteorologists predict at least some chance of rain." Huh? Needs a citation and rewording.

Reworded as general statement that would be true for most humid subtropical climates in the world. Ufwuct 15:38, 10 January 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Government and politics section needs citations.

Added several refs to this section. Removed several unsourced or vaguely sourced sentences. Ufwuct 15:38, 10 January 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• "Only 28 nations other than the United States have a GDP exceeding Houston's GAP" get rid fo the US reference... makes it wordy.

Reworded: 29 nations total. Ufwuct 15:38, 10 January 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Demographics section needs to be cited... I also don't like the GR citations, but don't know if they are acceptable or not.

Other featured U.S. cities articles include Boston, Massachusetts, Cleveland, Ohio, Louisville, Kentucky, Marshall, Texas, San Francisco, California, San Jose, California, and Seattle, Washington. The featured versions of these articles (Boston(Current version)ClevelandLouisvilleMarshallSan JoseSeattle(used U.S. Census Bureau but currently uses GR2)) all used GR2, except for San Francisco, which uses less accurate population estimates from a state agency instead of the U.S. Census Bureau. So, I'm fairly certain that GR citations are acceptable. Ufwuct 00:53, 11 January 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Crime section is choppy.Balloonman 00:27, 10 January 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have removed a duplicate sentence and cleaned up a few of the other sentences. Ufwuct 01:22, 11 January 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have reordered (and reworded) the sentences into a semi-chronological order. Ufwuct 01:16, 12 January 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Oppose. At a quick look, there are far too few sources. Everything in the body of the article needs to be sourced. Hurricanehink (talk) 00:29, 10 January 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This objection apparently has been resolved. This article has numerous references. 128.249.204.216 23:32, 18 January 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

That's just not true, I didn't even get past the first para without finding "The Port of Houston ranks first in the country in international cargo and second in total cargo tonnage. Second only to New York City in Fortune 500 headquarters, Houston is the seat of the Texas Medical Center, which contains the world's largest concentration of research and healthcare institutions.

", all uncited. Those should be easily citable facts right there - PocklingtonDan 22:06, 1 February 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The references are in the body of the article. Postoak 03:50, 3 February 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• OBJECT: Too many one/two sentence paragraphs, stubby subsections, writing often reads like a dull recitation of statistics (even stats can be made into compelling prose). History section is decent, but even that could use quite a bit of tweaking. Uneven writing means it ain't "well-written". Could use a few more facts being cited. —ExplorerCDT 18:47, 10 January 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Support. This article is well-organized and well-written. Contrary to complaints, the article has 93 references - versus 63 for today's feature ad, ahem article, Half-Life 2. That doesn't include the countless Wikilinks to detailed, informative articles about area landmarks and history, which contribute greatly to the value of this entry. Mike Serfas 20:51, 11 January 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Comment. I have no problem with 93 references as long as there are only 93 facts asserted. The issue remains that there are numerous facts asserted without required referencing. It's not merely a matter of quantity. It's that all facts asserted are cited, and verifiable (per WP:CITE, WP:RS, WP:V). Until facts that are currently uncited are cited, there's no reason to claim well: "it already has 93, more than article x, so that must mean that's plenty.". —ExplorerCDT 21:39, 11 January 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment. I'm honestly not sure to what standard this article is being held. Looking up at the other U.S. city featured articles (see above), Houston now (with 96) has more footnotes than any one of those other articles. Cleveland had very few in comparison its featured version. The featured version of Seattle has NO inline references, though it does have 7 external links embedded in the text.

If each sentence in a Wikipedia article can be thought of as an assertion, and every assertion must have a footnote-type source, then every article on Wikipedia (including all featured articles) miserably falls short of this standard. Even it is narrowed down to only sentences with numbers, percentages, or dates, or to strongly worded sentences, I would still venture to guess that no article on Wikipedia lives up to this standard. The featured version of the Cleveland article surely has more than 19 assertions and the featured version of the Seattle article has more than 7 sentences.

Basically, some facts have to be accepted as coming from the book sources, from non-linkable sources, or daughter articles. Otherwise, every sentence would end up having a ref after it, which would be unnecessary and distracting. I now think that this item (of sourcing) has become a strong point of this article. If the quality of the prose is lacking, that's a different issue, and maybe that should now be the focus of further improvements. Ufwuct 22:00, 11 January 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

To follow up, note that the featured article criterion 1(c) requires that the article be "factually accurate". The article must be verifiable against reliable sources. This does not mean that an hyperlinked reference is required for every sentence. In fact, no reference need be given at all - provided the material is accurate! It's a little bit paradoxical, but that appears to be the policy. To raise an objection you must actually point to something that is not factually accurate. Mike Serfas 00:27, 12 January 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Everything except "common knowledge" requires a source. Any claim that doesn't have a source is liable to be deleted although it is common practice and wikiquette to request a source, (possibly) mention it on the talk page, wait, wait some more, and then delete it (or move the claim to the talk page). However, I would like to again emphasize my question: To what standard is this article being held? There is no requirement for featured articles to be perfect. In fact, one of, if not the main reason that the main page featured articles are not protected or semi-protected (despite heavy vandalism) is that even featured articles need to be improved. Featured articles often are improved based on this main page exposure and were therefore not perfect to begin with. Ufwuct 01:29, 12 January 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Held up to each reviewer's interpretation of the criteria given their reasons, connotations, associations, and understanding of wikipedia policies and guidelines. FA status, as it stands now, demands a better article. Not perfect, but it does, superlatively, have to be the "best" work Wikipedia has to offer. The above aren't suggestions that the article sucks and is irredeemable (sometimes they are), but in this case, all I'm saying is the article does need a bit more improvement (and citation) before I will switch my objection to support. Lastly, several FA articles from 2004/2005 don't meet today's standards so comparisons of "well, this article is like this other article" are sometimes specious...considering the other article probably should be put up for FA Review given it's only here until someone notices how it doesn't match the current criteria.—ExplorerCDT 02:24, 13 January 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Support I watched this article grow for years and I find that it is currently of excellent quality. It has dramatically improved since its last FAC, and many fine Wikipedians have worked on it over the years. I do not find the reference assertion to be neither practical nor practicable. I pulled out several books, including Gone to Texas, by Randolph B. Campbell, considered the current definitive history of Texas, by scholars of Texas history. In it and the other texts that I reviewed, I did not find that every assertion made in passing is directly referenced neither though footnotes nor endnotes. The fact that it has more than references than any other city FA, eliminates any lingering concerns that I might have had. I find that most of the pictures—if not all of them—are of good quality and illustrate the article well. Since it is not the pictures themselves that are being featured, and technically an FA does not have to have any pictures at all, I see no need to dwell on that point further. GR references were the first broad attempt that wikipedia made at having inline references. They are de facto part of many US geography articles. I don’t see why a discussion about their worth should affect Houston more than say New York or Kalamazoo. I’m not saying that the worth of GRs isn’t worth discussing just that this is not the proper venue for it, nor should the article be penalized for something that all of the other. My only suggestion is that the weather chart be include in the climate section of the main article, as that is information that people want to see up front rather than in a sub article. I find the arguments of the oppostion to be unconvincing and the absence of the weather chart is not enough to change my opinion that the article deserves to be featured. -JCarriker 04:08, 21 January 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Object. The prose is not compelling (example: Many of the schools are accredited by an accrediting agency recognized by Texas Private School Accreditation Commission (TEPSAC). ), some of the links in the references are dead already, Further reading contains both External links and References, References are inconsistently formatted (some have last access date, some have retrieved on, some have no date), some refs are blue-linked URLs, and the templates are all over the place (some at top of section, some at bottom - they belong at the top). FAs should represent Wiki's best work. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:45, 24 January 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Support. It is a wonderful article that has evolved into greatness. Andman8 01:18, 25 January 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Object. As others have stated, the prose is less than compelling. Many of the sections are just one fact after another; no good flow. The Politics section is inadequate; an article about a city this size should have info about how Houston's politics affect Texas and the US in general. The article needs to be copyedited by a strong writer. The article makes several claims without citations, such as:

• (lead section) "Houston is recognized as a global or world city by the Globalization and World Cities Study Group & Network." (I found this citation later buried in the article).

Wikilinked. Ufwuct 00:18, 1 February 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• (crime) "Since 2005, Houston has been experiencing a spike in crime which is due in part to an influx of people from New Orleans into the city following Hurricane Katrina, according to the Houston Police Department."

There was a reference there before (I remember formatting it), but I guess someone decided to remove it. Ufwuct 00:18, 1 February 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The reference is there, a few sentences later, and I've put it after the sentence in question. Ufwuct 00:23, 1 February 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

--Mus Musculus 21:21, 31 January 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Object this reads like a collaborative effrt that is getting pulled in too many directions - as above, it needs one individual capable of compelling prose to copyedit it in one sitting and sort out the narrative/flow of the article from start to finish in one sitting. This is never going to be achieved with piecemeal collaborative editing. After a really good copyedit, this would be a good article - PocklingtonDan 14:28, 1 February 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment. Okay, I gave the article a copyedit up to tourism and recreation, so if people with prose complaints could take another look and see if it's improving. Points which I couldn't/didn't deal with are:

• More recently, new higher-density residential development has resulted in an urban lifestyle. The outlying areas of Houston, the airports and the city's suburbs and enclaves are outside the loop. - I'm not sure what the first sentence means, so it needs improving. The second appears to be saying that the outlying areas are on the outside, which is slightly odd. Could you make the meaning more explicit please.

You're right. This is a bit fluffy. I don't like the "urban lifestyle" part much. Ufwuct

Revised [User:Postoak|Postoak]]

• During the summer months, the average daily high temperature peaks at 94 °F (34 °C) at the end of July - messy. Summer months is implied by being in July. I'm not sure what is meant by "average daily high temperature" or exactly how one can peak. Also, should there be a space between 94 and °F (I'm not sure, so that is a question)? Needs tidying.

There should be a space between numbers and their units.

Also, you're right; the two phrases don't appear to belong in the sentence. It should something like:

"During the summer months, it be wicked hot down there (or whatever one would want to say). The average high temperature peaks at 94 °F (34 °C) at the end of July."

var.:"...The hottest time of the year is at the end of July, when the average high temperature is 94 °F (34 °C)."

For each one of the 365 days of the year, there is an average high temperature. The highest that this number gets in Houston is 94. The time at which this occurs is the end of July. This would be the peak. Ufwuct

• The city of Houston has a strong mayor-council government. - is strong a piece of jargon for the type of government, or an assessment on how well the system works? If the latter, it doesn't need to e repeated in the following sentence (and is, arguably, a tad POV).

It's describing the type of government. If it's confusing, maybe someone with fresh eyes could reword it. Ufwuct

Slightly changed the wikilinks to make it a little clearer Postoak

• There is a small but growing Muslim community that exists in the city with an estimated population of 50.000. - dunno when this was added, but sort out the ref.

I read the entire thing when I sourced it recently. I don't remember this sentence. Let's take it out. Ufwuct

Removed Postoak 03:07, 3 February 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Why is crime a subsection of Demographics?

Fixed Postoak 03:07, 3 February 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Houston has long been the focus of an independent hip-hop music scene, influencing and influenced by the larger Southern hip hop and gangsta rap communities. - needs a cite.

I read the entire thing when I sourced it recently. I don't remember this sentence. We could do without it. Ufwuct

Removed until it is sourced and fits better into the article. Postoak 03:07, 3 February 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I added the source link from The New Yorker. I think it important to include something about this portion of the music scene in the culture section.Deatonjr 03:17, 3 February 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I think it would be a shame if this wasn't featured, given the obvious amount of work which has gone into it, but it's not quite there yet. Trebor 00:03, 3 February 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for the review. Ufwuct 01:20, 3 February 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm continuing with the copyedit (up to Healthcare and Medicine), more issues which have come up:

• and the Angelika Film Center presents the latest in art, foreign and independent films - that needs clarifying, are you talking about "art films" or "art" and "foreign and independent films". If the former, add an "and" after art; if the latter, don't wikilink "independent films" together as it is confusing if it also shows "foreign films".
  • fixed Postoak 21:07, 4 February 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• The sentence beginning Other tourist attractions include the Galleria, is also very ambiguous. There are parenthetical commas used within list-based ones, making it unclear which is which.
  • fixed Postoak 21:07, 4 February 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• The San Jacinto Battlefield is in the nearby city of Deer Park. - relevance to Houston is unclear.
  • fixed Postoak 21:07, 4 February 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Is the first part of Sports too recentist? Has Houston not hosted events in the past?
• contributing to an urban renaissance that has transformed Houston's center into a day-and-night destination - I don't like that, it's too flowery and a bit meaningless. Who thinks it's a "day-and-night destination"?
  • fixed Postoak 21:07, 4 February 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Actually, the sport section as a whole needs work. It seems messy to me, focusing on recent events and being inconsistent in the level of detail.
• its only major daily newspaper with wide distribution - is "major" being used to mean anything other than "wide distribution"; if not, it's redundant.
• Citation for the circulation of the Post.
  • fixed Postoak 21:07, 4 February 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Sometimes the metric units are stated in brackets, sometimes not; is there a reason for the inconsistency?
• The sentence beginning The third-largest airport... and the one after it both contain "primarily". Could one of them be changed? I'm not sure what is meant by primarily in this context, otherwise I would make the change myself.

The second bit I've read on the whole seems weaker. And a quick comment on the refs: be consistent with how your phrase the accessdates. I think the best way is to begin a new sentence and say "Retrieved on Month day, Year". At the moment they're a mess of "last accessed", "last retrieved", "last retrived on" etc., with different phrasing and capitalisation. It's a small thing but it looks a bit messy if you don't do it. Trebor 00:33, 4 February 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• • Fixed Postoak 21:07, 4 February 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I finished off looking through the article and the only other thing I found was mentioned by Sandy above: Many of the schools are accredited by an accrediting agency recognized by Texas Private School Accreditation Commission (TEPSAC). is a horrible sentence, but I'm not quite sure how to tidy it up. Perhaps once you've dealt with my comments, you might like to ask those opposing for prose to take another look (not trying to big up my own skills, but I'd be interested to see what faults remain). Trebor 15:09, 4 February 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Object This article needs quite a bit of copyedit work done to be FA.

Isn't Rice University, an extremely prestigious research institute with the academic reputation of being the most grueling undergraduate university in the US located in Houston? It's also a major part of the reason for Houson being able to capture biotech and being a leading medical reserach city. This deserves a space in the lead.

The lead section needs to introduce Houston to the world, not to Americans living in the good ole USA.

"The Port of Houston ranks first in the country in international cargo and second in total cargo tonnage." In what country? The audience is English speakers, not Americans. In international cargo shipped, in total cargo tonnage that goes through a port, what?

A large part of "the world's largest concentration of research and healthcare institutions" is ye ole prestitigous university sitting nearby.

Who are the "Globalization and World Cities Study Group & Network?" I hate reading an article in a general encyclopedia that mentions some supposedly prestigious institution that I've never heard of.

""where its Mission Control Center is located" We all know whose it is, but again, let's be clear, as it is also a generic term. Also, is it still active, is it used for shuttle flights, can we assume we're not talking to only those in the know?

I think this article really overdoes the -- and ; for my taste. Simple sentences are not an enemy of good prose.

When did Houston gain the nickname "Space City?"

The paragraph that begins "Lawlessness, epidemics, and financial problems ..." Is all over the place. It looks like 20 people mad-libbed a sentence each then pasted it together. What epidemics? What lawlessness? You start with "lawlessness" then go onto settlers from the South and the plantation system. Were they lawless? "Slaves lived scattered," sounds like people dispersed their slaves throughout Houston to hide them or something. What are you trying to say? Slaves were kept, "lived" sounds like they chose or were just dispersed. Throughout what "neighborhoods?" Were their established neighborhoods in early Houston, mention something about them. What does slavery have to do with lawlessness, epidemics, and financial problems? It could have something to do with the latter if you stated that Texas and Houston endorsed the economics of the slavery-plantation system. "Texas interior," not "Texas inland." Place Galveston in its geographical relationship to Houston, also as you've called Houston a port city, but mention rail lines went to other ports, spell it out: Houston was not a port city at this time, so shipping was out of nearby Galveston and Beaumont Texas or whatever the specific case was.

"Spindletop" is an oil field, a very famous one. If your mom was an exploration petroleum geologist it leaps out at you, but not for most people. Either just oil in a salt dome oil field near Beaumont, or Spindletop, an oil field near Beaumont or something. Not just for Americans, but not just for the oil patch, either. Also, whose oil industry, seems like you're talking about the Houston or Texas oil industry, but wasn't it a rather bigger oil industry that began when Spindletop gushed in?

Don't like the wording on the Galveston sentence about the hurricane.

Was air travel common in the 1930s?

"World War II started, tonnage levels fell," tonnage levels of what where? Tonnage levels through the port? Was five shipping lines significant? Were there 11 total or 129?

Houston's base ecosystem is more diverse than just prairie, aren't there wetlands? Did the city spread and build only on prairie? Is it shortgrass prairie in Houston (own curiosity)?

Did they only train bombardiers there, not pilots or any other part of the crew? I suppose bombardiers could be trained separately, just like pilots are, but I don't know?

Did aircraft and shipbuilding become large industries statewide, or was shipbuilding confined to the Gulf Coast of Texas?

The "Eighth Wonder of the World" nickname comment is kinda taken out of relevancy by the sentence saying it was no big deal. If it ain't a big deal, delete it.

So folks moved to Houston due to the Arab Oil Embargo? (Oh, you say "ad" here where you mean to say "and.") Why? Because of jobs in the oil industry? Then spell it out, this neatly ties it in with the collapse.

Say when the "Space Shuttle Challenger exploded shortly after launch," or something. It's colloquial as is.

Don't like the wording on the sentences about the recession, clean it up, make it flow.

Houston is reducing its dependence on petroleum or the petroleum industry? Since you're talking about the aerospace industry and biotech, I assume you mean petroleum industry.

Mention why so many folks were evacuated to Houston from New Orleans--not until I did the drive did I realize those two cities were anywhere near each other. It still surprises me, but don't assume the audience knows that.

:"leaving little damage to the Houston area" is sufficient. Postoak

How does flatness relate to flooding? My friends live on a flat plateau in the Rockies, so flat that the USGS does research their on its flatness, but there is no danger of flooding whatsoever. Add extensive wetlands and a spring melt, maybe they would get flooded. You need a relationship between the flatness, the elevation, and Houston's wetlands.

What's "the Heights?" "runs through the Heights, a neighborhood in northern Houston," or whereever it is. You do this better in the rest of the paragraph. Postoak 03:10, 10 February 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It isn't layers series of sands and clays "deposited on decaying organic matter," but rather organic matter trapped in deltaic depositions of some nature. Don't use "tier" as a synonym for depositional layers, as it isn't. Be careful in general about supplying your own synonyms for scientific terms. Maybe this is a petroleum term I don't know, but I do know it's a soil science term used in Canada, so unless you're certain, don't use it. This paragraph needs some work.

Also, you have Cityscape in the middle of Geography/Geology/Cityscape/Climate, and it should be Geography/Climate/Geology/Cityscape, but the latter last.

So, Houston's grown in a different manner from what? From other US cities, other major US cities most of which have organized growth under zoning laws? "Five additional business districts in addition to the downtown business district," for a total of six?

:Are the deserts of Mexico really south and southeast of Houston?

fixed Postoak 01:48, 10 February 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Is this format for Wiki dates, 2000 September 4? Shouldn't it be on September 4, 2000 in prose? Postoak 01:11, 10 February 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

:Christmas Eve snow is not really relevant. Postoak 01:11, 10 February 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

:"strong mayoral form of municipal government"

fixed Postoak 00:52, 10 February 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Don't use nicknames, it should be "William White" or "William Middlename White."

He is known as Bill White - How about William "Bill" White? Postoak 00:57, 10 February 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Probably appropriate in this case, as is usuall done with Jimmy Carter. Anyone else have any say-so? KP Botany 02:39, 10 February 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"The current city council line-up was based on a U.S. Justice Department nadate which took effect in 1979?" REally? But you just said they only have two year terms. Oh, wait no term limits. Or do you meaqn the method of at large and district council members, not their line-up? A line-up is people, not their seats.

How does Houston having home rule tie in with municipal elections in the state of Texas being nonpartisan? This latter point makes it sound like Houston doesn't have home rule, or has it only in other areas than form of municipal elections, which doesn't sound like home rule to me.

Paragraph beginning "Houston's energy industry" is all over the place. Oh, those "--" just make for poor prose. Can you say it without them? Is Houston known for any type of energy besides petroleum? Don't say "first in the country," unless you've just mentioned US, this is an international encyclopedia.

What is GAP's relationship to GDP? It's not obvious.

Revised, please see article Postoak 03:31, 10 February 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Houston's ranking as metro area, in the world, or in the USA? Forbes? You mean Forbes magazine or what?

clarified Postoak 03:39, 10 February 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Is it 5.31% Asian or Asian American? Since Houston has a large Vietnamese immigration population, it's not clear.

The paragraph on Hispanics and illegals is just all over the place, please be very clear that there is a large illegal Hispanic population and a large resident Hispanic population and just whom you are speaking about when. How is the Mexican population sorted, Hispanics and non? I don't really understand what is being said here.

Instead of "The following year" say "In 2006" and "like other large cities," "like other large American cities," or are you talking world cities? No need to name the largest gang, unless it started in Houston, or is found only in Houston, then need contextual statement.

Add reference to first word spoken on moon.

At "Reliant Park, in whateverpartofHouston." Put the Houston Pride Parade in context, is it the biggest parade, how long Houston has had it. If it's not the biggest, or longest running, substitute the biggest or longest running parade.

:Is the city "host to local folk art?" Usually you don't host the locals but the out-of-towners. The city is "home to a folk artists" or something.

ok Postoak 01:29, 10 February 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

:Exhibitions, like "auto, boat, home, and gun shows" are NOT art!:

I agree..removed Postoak 00:48, 10 February 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Any country music or classical in Houston, or just hip-hop, any tejano even?

:Include year in Super Bowl XXXVIII, plus also NFL's Super Bowl. Is the Shell Houston Open golf or what?

fixed Postoak 00:41, 10 February 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

:Which San Jose? fixed Postoak 00:41, 10 February 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

:What plays at Hofheinz Pavilioni, etc., are these the homes of teams, or just general use municipal stadiums? Ah, Rice, world famous Rice gets mentioned finally.

Fixed Postoak 00:23, 10 February 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

:Does this free alternative weekly really have a daily circulation count or a weekly? It's a fairly wealthy weekly if it can count daily.

Fixed Postoak 00:09, 10 February 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

:You've dropped a sentence, or maybe I did: "Several radio and television... are in" and then nothing.

Fixed Postoak 00:09, 10 February 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

KP Botany 20:53, 4 February 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for your valuable input. Postoak 21:07, 4 February 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Comment Let's give this article a little more time as a FAC to pull it together. It's not ready now, but most of these criticisms aren't issues that will take additional substantive research, just a lot of picking. KP Botany 18:35, 9 February 2007 (UTC)Reply[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.