Besides the lack of citation, the Oklahoma City page is a terrible read. It's full of bias. The author (or authors) appears to have created a piece in defense of something. As if disparaging remarks about this city are all that are known.
On accuracy, I didn't get much into the article because very little was cited and because of lack of neutrality. However, at the bottom of the page the article lists "Oklahoma Outlaws" of the USFL as a professional sports team of Oklahoma City. It mentions (co-owned with Tulsa). Especially with lack of citation this is disturbing, however, the Oklahoma Outlaws played all of their home-games in Tulsa. What factually (or in the author's opinion) makes Oklahoma Outlaws a "co-owned" team, or a team that has anything to do with Oklahoma City? Why would Oklahoma City have a claim to any link to the Outlaws, given that the Outlaws never played in Oklahoma City?
Zoroaster8000 (talk) 19:04, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
- It was probably some Oklahoma City person assuming that any team whose name includes the word "oklahoma" must be from Oklahoma City... they like to forget that Tulsa is here too. You're right, the Outlaws played only in Tulsa for one season (1984) before moving to Arizona. I've removed it.
- You're also right that this article is pretty bad. Some months ago, it was much worse, but I cleaned it up a bit and removed a lot of unsourced boosterism. Even so, it seems like the Oklahoma City chamber of commerce wrote much of the article. You can always be bold and improve the article yourself, and you are not only welcome to do so — you are encouraged! It would be great to have someone work on it; I never have done serious editing because I am just not all that familiar with Oklahoma City and my time on Wikipedia is fickle. However, this is a high priority article not only for Wikiproject Oklahoma but for Wikiproject Cities and it needs some hard work fast. I'm putting up a neutrality and reference tag for the time being. Okiefromokla questions? 22:35, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
Other than the things that are noted as needing citation, what needs to be changed. There is a lot of "boosterism" of positives, but plenty of mentions of the negatives, including poor inner-city schools, disastrous results of Urban Renewal, and of course the bombing. As far as neutrality goes, I don't see an imbalance. What needs to change? Jbrown84 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 20:02, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
I guess part of what got me going on this article was under the Geography section. The article states:
"Contrary to popular belief, the geography is not flat and treeless (like in the true high plains to the west), though some areas of the southern and western portions of Oklahoma City are more level."
To paraphrase: "please don't think of us as flat and treeless, but if you come here, don't be surprised if you see some flat and treeless areas."
Instead, "Oklahoma City has a diverse topography ranging from.....". Give a description of the types of terrain. Load it up with citations, then if possible, perhaps add a topographical map.
It seems to me that the line itself is completely unnecessary. Very rarely, IMO, should a defense of (or appeal to) "popular belief" be used. The author/authors didn't take a poll to find out what popular belief is, and if they did take such a poll, they obviously didn't cite it. The section does go into type of geography, though again with little citation.
The neutrality issue goes both ways IMO. Both "boosterism" and "disparaging remarks" should be limited. The author's opinion, whatever that is, needs to be limited. Naming objects, places, peoples, terrain, climate; that's great. I'm sure Oklahoma City has great points and not so great points. Saying "this is great" or "this we could do without" or "it's popular to believe but"; those are the author's opinions. And it goes to what the author is trying to prove; hence Neutrality.
I could pick and choose several lines in different sections. That's one line that really stood out to me the first time I read it. I'll take a closer look at the article and see if I can contribute to cleaning it up some. I've never edited Wiki, and so I'm somewhat hesitant to start now. Maybe I'll find my intestinal fortitude somewhere. --Zoroaster8000 (talk) 18:30, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
I am going to look more into the Geography section. Perhaps I can flesh it out, cite it, and neutralize it a bit.--Zoroaster8000 (talk) 18:54, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
- The geography section is what did it for me, too. It is true that much of the "boosterism" has been removed (mainly by me, actually) but some of it is still there, although it is nowhere near as bad as it once was. I may have overreacted with a neutrality tag, but the article is certainly very bad due to its lack of sources. If the neutrality tag is disputed, please remove it. Okiefromokla questions? 02:19, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
I've been gone for a long time, but did somebody rename the Canadian River as the Oklahoma River. Rpmayhugh (talk) 00:52, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
- Yes, the city did that. Okiefromokla questions? 02:19, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
I removed some of the uncited information and tried to clean up the Film district section. It was pretty much a plagiarism from a guest blog article on The Oklahomans' Web site. I provide some citations from that source in the section, but it needs quite a bit of cleaning up still. Okiefromokla 02:17, 26 January 2010
The crime section is just ridiculous. It seems as if someone is trying to prove how "hard" the city is when in fact it has a single digit murder rate and is relatively safe for an American city. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.127.116.11 (talk) 07:31, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
- I removed the first two paragraphs of the crime section. The only reference was to an out of date DOJ document, and I sure don't think the DOJ, or any police agency can be considered a reliable reference for anything but statistical crime info. It is in the police's best interest to promote the idea that a given city is dangerous, as in this day of declining budgets, the police department's share of the limited money pie is fueled by keeping the citizens in fear. Gtwfan52 (talk) 07:46, 23 January 2013 (UTC)