The article was delisted by Casliber via FACBot (talk) 2:37, 16 February 2018 (UTC) [1].
I am nominating this featured article for review because...
These are several categories of issues with the Houston article, and this I compiled from a fairly cursory reading. As I continue to check citations, this list could grow.
However, I hope this is not too negative. There must have been a great effort and good work by many various editors to bring this article to FA back in 2007. This is more than ten years later and it appears that the article needs a comprehensive effort. For those Houstonians who are are still cleaning up after Harvey, or helping others doing the same, there could be nothing more important. But not everyone interested in improving the Houston article currently lives in the region. Thank you for reading, Oldsanfelipe (talk) 17:21, 10 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Total area and land area The citation from 2009 cites a land area of a bit over 599 miles while the text reads 667 miles, which is given elsewhere as the total area.
In any case, the article and the citation disagree.Oldsanfelipe (talk) 18:10, 10 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Lead section has old links Some citations link to articles from 2010, 2011, and 2012. Oldsanfelipe (talk) 18:18, 10 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Land purchase, founding of Houston A statement in the History section is incorrect:
Second, when Houstonians claim that the city was founded August 30, 1836, the significance of this date is the famous advertisement that the Allen placed. For some reason, people attempt to attach other events to this date.
Sports: claim fails verification "It is the only MLB team to have won pennants in both modern leagues." The Astros just won their first AL pennant last month, but the sentence is followed by a citation to a web site last retrieved in 2013. Oldsanfelipe (talk) 02:23, 11 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Infobox: area Perhaps there is are editors who have already vetted these numbers and who are still on Wikipedia. I know it is tempting for other editors to change one of the numbers in a way that renders the other number correct. Confession: A few years ago, I think I changed a total population number without changing the density number, for example. I apologize to those who were trying to keep the page in good order. In any case, these current numbers are inconsistent:
Area
• City 667 sq mi (1,625.2 km2) (I have seen 599.6 elsewhere.) • Land 639.1 sq mi (1,642.1 km2) • Water 667 sq mi (1,625.2 km2) (I have seen 27-ish elsewhere.) • Metro 10,062 sq mi (26,060 km2)
Once these correct numbers are reintroduced, I would agree to monitor them for unhelpful edits. Oldsanfelipe (talk) 10:48, 11 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Geography statement fails verification
Houston#Geography:
"The Piney Woods are north of Houston. Most of Houston is located on the gulf coastal plain, and its vegetation is classified as temperate grassland and forest. Much of the city was built on forested land, marshes, swamp, or prairie which resembles the Deep South, and are all still visible in surrounding areas. The flatness of the local terrain, when combined with urban sprawl, has made flooding a recurring problem for the city."
Here is the archived link from the citation.
If I have read this correctly, this links to dry paper on the modeling of measurement of storm events, without any characterization of regional features or analysis of flooding. I agree with some of the statements, but this is not what the linked source talks about.Oldsanfelipe (talk) 11:58, 11 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delist—nobody seems interested in addressing the issues above. —Deckiller (t-c-l) 16:21, 5 February 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]