Talk:Texas/FA Prep

• LINK TO MAIN TALK PAGE
• LINK TO ARTICLE

FA prep: We got out work cut out for us. While i don't plan on rushing for FA status, I am organizing a framework in with we can work around to get FA status. I have dissected Karanacs’s review into various chunks. But as Karanacs has said, this is by means a comprehensive list. I hopefully, we can add more to this list when more reviews start coming in. When adding to this page, please sign by inserting ~~~~ at the end of your edit.

Introduction

• The 2nd and 3rd paragraphs of the lead cover essentially the same topic and should likely be combined Done Oldag07 (talk)
• I'd add at least a mention in the lead that France had a small colony in Texas too, and a mention that Texas joined the :Confederacy during the Civil War.

done Oldag07 (talk) 04:01, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

• The lead also seems to have no mention of several major section of in the article, including the climate and government/politics sections

  I'm going to leave this until the end so I can make sure we don't miss something, but it is a little bit lacking, even if it's only a passing mention of the sections below. — BQZip01 — ^talk 21:47, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Etymology

addressed

• In etymology, I'd mention that the Spanish used "Tejas" or "Texas" to refer to the state, from the Caddo name.
• I think the information about Texas manifestations in vernacular speech is essentially trivia that could be removed from the article.
• The info about the Caddos could then go into the history section.

• As the writer of the Etymology section, i understand the logic of removing it. However it seems like a US state standard thing to have a Etymology section. FA articles Minnesota and Oklahoma both have these sections. I'll remove the "trivia", and we might have to debate the existence of a Etymology section in WikiProject United States board. Oldag07 (talk) 06:50, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

• proof reading cycle followed Karanacs' advice. 173.74.78.208 (talk) 18:13, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

History

• The history section probably ought to begin with information about the Native Americans who lived in the area. I haven't done much research on the pre-colonial days (hence why the History of Texas article doesn't have much info in it), but I know there were Caddo, Karankawa, and other tribes in Texas long before the Europeans arrived.
• The first paragraph of the Colonization section doesn't make it clear that Pineda claimed the whole area of Texas for Spain (which makes it confusing when the article mentions French "encroachment")
• I think the Colonization section misses out on some important information - the fact that there was fighting in Texas during the Mexican War of Independence that actually resulted in the defeat of the Spanish forces and caused a Spanish backlash that decimated the country.
• There is zero information about what happened during the 10-yr Republic of Texas. It might be good to learn who recognize the new country (Mexico didn't), that Mexico invaded ("two recaptures of Bexar" doesn't say by whom), and some of the policies that were enacted (such as Lamar's actions against the Native American population)

• Expanded but needs more work Oldag07 (talk) 05:59, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

addressed

• I don't like that the History section begins with a large picture of the 6 flags of Texas and no text to explain what that means. Sections should begin with text, not pictures

• Done Oldag07 (talk) 04:09, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

• When the article refers to people (such as La Salle), use their whole name the first time they are mentioned.

• Fixed La Salle. looking for more. Oldag07 (talk) 03:41, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

• The information about the Convention of 1832/1833 belongs in either the colonization section or in a separate section on the Texas Revolution

FixedOldag07 (talk) 05:59, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

• There is almost no information about the Texas Revolution. It is significant that the Texans kicked out all Mexican troops in 1835, that Santa Anna invaded in 1836 and achieved mostly victories before his defeat at San Jacinto - which was partially due to Santa Anna's policies of taking no prisoners. That angered the colonists enough to join up. Also, much of the revolution was fought by adventurers from the US, who also formed a lot of the new government. And it should mention that Mexico was worried about the US immigration and they feared the US was trying to take over the province

• Greatly expandedOldag07 (talk) 20:48, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

• The Texas Civil War Museum is not a reliable source

Removed, and expanded section. Oldag07 (talk) 20:19, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

• The modern era section seems focused on education. What else happened since 1870?

• Added the JFK assassination. If you look at the FA Minnesota pages, not much is said on the modern era. Oklahoma admittedly had the Oklahoma city bombingOldag07 (talk) 20:48, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

• bexargenealogy.com is not a reliable source

• Removed Oldag07 (talk) 21:29, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

• Also expanded the Mexican war sectionOldag07

• I don't believe that Lone Star Junction is a reliable source

Removed. redundant sourceOldag07 (talk) 20:21, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

(talk) 20:48, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Geography

• There ought to be citations for "debatable. Depending on the source, it can be fairly considered either or both a Southern or Southwestern state. The vast geographic, economic, and cultural diversity within the state itself prohibits easy categorization of the whole state into a recognized region of the United States. The East, Central, and North Texas, regions have a stronger association with the American South than with the Southwest. Others, such as far West Texas and South Texas share more similarities with the latter."

• (Earlier thread)- After the removal of the uncited information, we seemed to made way too many cuts into the geography section. It basically gives the location of the state, and that is about it. I don't get the understanding that texas has mountains and deserts in the west, forests in the east, and prairies in the middle. I have foun a source page to start, but it seems like we would have to rewrite the Geography of Texas page also. http://www.tpwd.state.tx.us/publications/parkguide/?page=directory&lang=en I think all we need are small descriptions of these regions, and we should be good.

• Panhandle Plains
• Hill Country
• Big Bend
• Prairies and Lakes
• Gulf Coast
• South Texas Plains
• Pineywoods

We can also embellish this main page with sourced statements off the Geography of Texas page

But we should wait until the GA review is over to put this on, but i feel this would be a step towards FA standards. Oldag07 (talk) 04:46, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

I found a few more sources after some initial searching:[1] [2] [3]. The third one is probably the best I found. I'm sure there's more out there, but those should cover some of the basics if someone wants to write a paragraph or two on the subject. I agree that the various regions should be mentioned and described, as Texas has one of the most varied landscapes in the country. AlexiusHoratius 06:25, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Lets not forget wildflowers! Lady Bird Johnson Wildflower CenterOldag07 (talk) 17:31, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

• There need to be citations in the first paragraph of Geology
• There needs to be a bit more emphasis on the fact that Texas is also bordered by the Gulf of Mexico - possible mentioning the number of miles of coastline and the fact that there are barrier islands
• Some of the regions of Texas are briefly mentioned, but there is not a comprehensive explanation of what and where they are. This would make most sense in the Geography section.
• The Llano Estacado is mentioned in an image, but not in the text - that seems a bit of an oversight
• The Davis Mountains are not mentioned at all

addressed

Climate

addressed

• Is "cleanenergystates.org" a reliable source (i think probably no)

• Removed Oldag07 (talk) 20:36, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

• The picture of "Galveston" is actually of the Johnstown flood of 1889 according to the page it takes you to if you click on the image70.112.230.44 (talk) 23:59, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

• Removed. section doesn't need two pictures. Oldag07 (talk) 04:28, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

• Is msn city guides a reliable source?

removedOldag07 (talk) 18:20, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Demographics

• The Demographics section seems too much like lists. Some of these lists could be in tabular format; others should be more prose.
• The Demographics section mentions nothing about languages spoken (I know that election ballots have to be translated into lots of languages)
• Is "Association of Religion Data Archives" a reliable source?

addressed

• Reference 81 is another wikipedia page - that is DEFINITELY not a reliable source Done Oldag07 (talk) 04:53, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

• Haven't done it yet, but I am not certain if explaining how the census works would be the best of ideas for this page. It is already very long as is, and the census habits do not change state to state. Maybe a wikilink?Oldag07 (talk) 20:38, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

• "The natural increase since the last census " - need to specify what year that census way; people from outside the US aren't familiar with the census-taking habits of the US

• Sort of fixed Oldag07 (talk) 05:59, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Government and politics

• I think there needs to be a bit more explanation on the wackiness that is the state constitution - what are the "provisions unique to Texas" in the state's Bill of Rights? also mention how specific the constitution is - some of the things that we have to amend it for are nutty (and what is the process for amending it and how often has that happened)
• Need a cite for this "The state's Democratic presence comes primarily from minority groups and urban voters, particularly in Austin." (South Texas is also often Democratic due to immigration)
• "Dallas remains approximately split." - I don't think this is true anymore? I thought that in 2006 Dallas voters kicked out all the Republicans and that the entire city roster of elected officials was Democratic (Houston is on the verge of doing the same thing, if the Chronicle can be believed)
• Probably need a cite for this "County government runs similar to a "weak" mayor-council system; the county judge has no veto authority, but votes along with the other commissioners."

addressed

• Need to cite " Scholars attribute the change to the success of Nixon's Southern Strategy."

• Removed problematic phraseOldag07 (talk) 19:11, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

• In the politics section, might mention the most recent gerrymandering of legislative districts - that set a precedent in allowing the districts to be redrawn in a year that there were not new census results and there were several lawsuits about it (and it led to the legislature leaving the state, which was funny and might be worthy of mention)

• DoneOldag07 (talk) 19:11, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

• "Today, Republicans control most of Texas's U.S. House of Representatives delegation, " - Avoid use of "today", etc because the reader doesn't know when that was written - October 2008, Nov 2008, 2004? Done, although an updated source is now needed for that paragraph for the new congress coming in 2009. Oldag07 (talk) 05:33, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
• "Of the 32 congressional districts in Texas, 19 are Republican seats and 13, Democrat seats." - this is likely not going to make sense to non-Americans. It makes it sound like we always reserve 19 seats for the Republicans

• Sort of fixed Oldag07 (talk) 02:31, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

• Might need a cite for this "Texas has 32 congressional districts, the second-most after California. "

• I have to disagree. When to cite sources are needed according to Wikipedia:Citing_sources#When_to_cite_sources.
• To ensure that the content of articles can be checked by any reader or editor.

• It first off is already covered though interwiki links. Second, the number of congressional delegations a state has isn't a very difficult fact to find or refute.

• To show that your edit is not original research and to reduce editorial disputes.

• The number of congressional districts in Texas and Cali is not a controversial fact. It isn't like i went out and took a poll to find out that there were 32 congressional districts in Texas and 53 districts in California.

• To avoid claims of plagiarism and copying.
• To help users find additional information on the topic.

• Same as point 1

• To ensure that material about living persons complies with biography policy.

• N/A

• To improve the credibility of Wikipedia.

and honestly, this page is already too big as is. Save the space for a fact that is more controversial.Oldag07 (talk) 04:06, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

• I think the Texas Rangers need a bit more explanation - founded by Stephen F. Austin, etc.

• DoneOldag07 (talk) 14:03, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Economy

• Might mention the King Ranch - isn't it the largest in the US and one of the largest in the world?
• Might expand a bit on the commercial fishing industry - what are the most common types of seafood harvested/caught and how does that rank with the rest of the nation/world
• "Since 2002, Texas deregulated its electric service."...and, why is this important?
• There really isn't information on the cost of living in the state. I'm not sure whether that is available or not

• I found a source on cost of living. it is inconclusive. it seems cost of living is different city to city. http://www.cityrating.com/costOfLiving/state.asp?state=TX Oldag07 (talk) 03:22, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

addressed

• I don't think that the sales tax holidays need to be mentioned, and if so they don't need so much detail Done Oldag07 (talk) 05:40, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
• "for Texas's business tax climate, the state ranks 8th in the nation" - 8th highest or 8th lowest?
• "a whole, Texas is a "tax donor state" with Texans receiving back approximately $0.94 per every dollar of federal income taxes collected in 2005" - this doesn't make a lot of sense to me

• Reworded it. This is the truth. some states get more money for every dollar their residents pay into the system. some get less. Oldag07 (talk) 06:46, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

• Might mention that Texas has its own electric grid (I think, and I don't know why, but that is significant considering the whole northeast is on one grid). Texas also has lots of power plants, and I'm not sure how much of the nation's power is produced here.

• IIRC, TX is a net exporter. Wasn't Enron based in TX & exporting to CA? TREKphiler ^{hit me ♠} 04:34, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

• If you can find a source for it. Although, i think texas is really on its own grid. See Texas Interconnection. Enron might have been buying the power from somewhere else? Oldag07 (talk) 06:48, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

• How much wind power is produced each year?

• Worth a mention T. Boone Pickens is planning a major wind power project, from TX north to (somewhere)? TREKphiler ^{hit me ♠} 04:34, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

• The Pickens Plan seems to be on a national scale. maybe the wind farm could go on the Economy of Texas page, but i think it is iffy on the Texas page.

• Is expanded. Not sure if it is what you are looking for. Oldag07 (talk) 20:30, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

• The Why is the info about the transportation hub in Commerce and not in transportation? I kind of expected to continue reading in that paragraph about the ports, but then I saw it was in the next section

• I switched it as suggested. The transportation hub paragraph originated in the economy paragraph, but it was moved to the economics paragraph because the state's status as a transportation hub is a huge part of the state's economy. I guess it could go either way. Oldag07 (talk) 03:03, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

• Is FierceBiotech a reliable source

• RemovedOldag07 (talk) 21:00, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Transportation

• Interstates are mentioned, but not US highways - should those be included as well?
• Is texasfreeway.com a reliable source?
• Is aaroads.com a reliable source?
• ref 131 is not a full source (Aviation Week and Space Technology, January 15, 2007, p. 349, )
• is Aviationexplorer.com a reliable source?

addressed

• I'm not sure if the Trans-Texas Corridor should be mentioned, because it's not a sure thing at all yet

• removed. also removed high speed train section. Oldag07 (talk) 03:45, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

• Removed high speed sectionOldag07 (talk) 05:59, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

• Might want to mention that the Wright Amendment has been loosened a bit

• Removed mention of the Wright amendment to save space. Oldag07 (talk) 20:53, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

• Keeptexasmoving.com is not a reliable source

• I think i was removed earlier.Oldag07 (talk) 21:02, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Culture

• In sports, might want to discuss high school athletics a bit - mention the UIL and the number of divisions by school size. Also, is the new UIL program of drug-testing students unique in the nation at all?

High schools are mentioned

"The University Interscholastic League (UIL) organizes most primary and secondary school competitions. Events organized by UIL include athletics as well as the arts and academic subjects such as mathematics."

That being said, it can be elaborated Oldag07 (talk) 06:00, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

• I love how the Culture section begins with the breakfast burrito, way to go Texas! Why not barbeque? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.79.193.184 (talk) 06:24, 19 November 2008

• there actually is quite a bit about Texas Barbecue on this page: Barbecue#Texas. somebody want to add it? Oldag07 (talk) 04:30, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Healthcare

• is coderedtexas.org a reliable source?

Education

• There probably needs to be a bit more information about private schools, charter schools, and home school (do we know how many kids in each category)

addressed

SMU additions] These is the location of the pro SMU edits. I guess it should have been contested, but I am not sure what to do with it. The ranking stuff does make sense. Oldag07 (talk) 06:59, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

• • • • I think listing the ranking stuff opens it up to a war of 'fluffery' that is completely unnecessary in this article. Obviously a pro-SMU editor fluffed up that entry a bit. SMU is definitely worthy of mention, but no more than any of the other major schools. Rice, UT, and TAMU are all generally regarded as Texas' three tier 1 universities, beyond a mention of that fact, I'd recommend leaving the ratings/rankings stuff out.--Elred (talk) 20:25, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
        • The whole paragraph needs a major rewrite. Removed most of the SMU bosterism, but the ranking thing is the only way i could make it seem notable. As for the picture, it looks a lot better than the old UT one. But i am sure there are better pictures out there.Oldag07 (talk) 22:40, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
          • I added/rewrote some of it in an attempt to touch all the bases briefly. It needs references but I'll let the change percolate before I bother tracking them down.--Elred (talk) 21:31, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
            • I believe any mention of prominent private institutions should include Trinity. --Tsr66 (talk) 07:54, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
              • Good catch. we encourage anybody to add stuff Tsr66, but i added it this time. Oldag07 (talk) 16:48, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Overall needs

• Get a good copyeditor to do a survey of the whole article
• The web sources are not all formatted properly
• From the references, some of the article looks more like original research. For example, the article uses info from individual cities off the weather channel - this means that the person who added this into the article was deciding for the readers which cities were properly representative of the temperature data for the state, rather than a third-party source (book/magazine/journal article). Example 2: The article directly cites Lockheed Martin and Bell Helicopter websites - that shows that the author is likely cherrypicking information. We need to see this type of data in independent sources
• If at all possible, avoid press releases. They are self-published sources
• The image captions need a lot of work and expansion. The captions should go beyond simply identifying what is being pictured - they should also explain why the image is significant and they should try to tie it into what is being talked about in the text. For instance, compare the current captions of the same oil well image in Texas#Economy with Oklahoma#Economy. The oil well picture isn't the only example, there are many others in the article (Port of Houston, Lakewood Church, Stephen. F. Austin...). AlexiusHoratius 04:15, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

addressed

• There are too many right-aligned pictures. On one of my monitors, it leads to lots of white space because the pictures are too close together.

did move stuff around, not going to mark it off until I get a 2nd opinion on these changes. Oldag07 (talk) 05:59, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

• I'm not sure if "Texas Politics" (ref 51) is a reliable source

• I am not sure with guideline negates Texas Politics as a source. The source itself claims:

"Texas Politics is a project of Liberal Arts Instructional Technology Services (LAITS), a unit of the College of Liberal Arts at the University of Texas at Austin. The Texas Politics project team builds on the University's close association with state government."

We quote that source a lot. Hopefully it can stay. . Oldag07 (talk) 02:51, 8 November 2008 (UTC)-