Jump to content

Talk:Galveston Bay Area/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2

Merge Proposal

Some editors have suggested privately that this article should be merged with Greater Houston. I invite them and any others who are interested to discuss here.

--Mcorazao (talk) 18:21, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

It appears that the History section is the only unique section in the article, most of the other sections are borrowed from other articles. Unless it was renamed to "History of the Galveston Bay area" and only the history section retained and expanded, I would merge. Is the "Houston-Galveston Metro Area" an official designation? Postoak (talk) 20:01, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
The article is progressing quite well. New unique content has been added along with reliable sources. I suggest that it not be merged with "Greater Houston" Postoak (talk) 00:47, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
Depends on what you mean by "official". The OMB defines an MSA it calls "Houston–Sugar Land–Baytown". The Wikipedia article is titled "Greater Houston". Many books and articles say "Houston-Galveston". In common parlance its typically "Houston Area" or "Houston Metro Area". Arguably the OMB name is the only "official" name although almost nobody really ever uses that.
I chose to use "Houston-Galveston" because much of the area being discussed is part of Galveston County and the entire area was historically more influenced by Galveston than Houston before the hurricane. But I don't really care that much.
--Mcorazao (talk) 20:36, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
no merge. I would rather stick to official designations with officially defined geographic limits and not amorphous ones that anyone can insert the town or city of their choice in because it is so broad. One of the problems with MSAs is they are not well supported. People insist on inserting (for example) airports in cities when their limits do not include them. Quite properly in the MSA but people feel "put out" when they are asked to do this. Their civic pride is injured! Having even a higher level than and MSA will result in still more opportunity for neglect. The article will get "dusty" after the initial surge.Student7 (talk) 19:47, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
Comment: There is a fundamental issue here that we should be careful about. Appealing to official government designations such as the OMB definitions is a convenient way to focus discussion and keep everybody on the same page. But ultimately we have to be careful about reading too much into these definitions. The OMB definitions do not reflect social or cultural connections nor do the definitions mean that the entire MSA is economically and demographically uniform. In other words, the OMB definitions do not imply that there aren't sub-regions which are in some important ways distinct from the MSA as a whole.
One problem Wikipedia has that Student7 is touching on is, the less a topic has a formal definition from a single source with unique authority, the harder it is to get editors to agree on a scope for the article. Still, though, the fact that this is a limitation of Wikipedia does not mean that topics having this problem do not have merit. I would, say, in the case of this topic, a discussion about the proper scope would be a worthwhile discussion if anybody wants to go there (a couple of editors hinted at this discussion in private but never really opened that up).
--Mcorazao (talk) 01:35, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Land grab

Speaking of scope, the article now defines the area to include a large chunk of southeast Texas, including a goodly portion of Harris County and the Houston ballet. This is really going a bit far. Come on!

I once worked on Hoboken, but gave up after they grabbed Laguardia airport. But we are talking Hoboken here, a national joke. Is that what Galveston wants to become? A wannabe with an inferiority complex? Student7 (talk) 19:52, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Sorry to sound exasperated but What the heck are you talking about? This article covers a small part of Harris County (I think less than 5% geographically just taking a quick look at a map, even if you use the most liberal definition in the article; in terms of population it is less than 10% of the MSA and the portion of Houston it involves is probably less than 5%). It does not even mention the Houston Ballet at all. The article also explicitly excludes Galveston.
I think the article currently covers all of these details very clearly (short of putting in a list of explicit disclaimers).
--Mcorazao (talk) 20:40, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

"Definition"

I added a Definition section specifically because I felt that the above debates demonstrated it as an important issue to clarify in the article up front. There were recent edits that chopped out most of that section and reduced it to essentially just discussing the BAHEP's definition of the Bay Area.

Although the BAHEP is a good authoritative resource to use (and I have) I do not believe that treating them as the exclusive authority on what defines the Bay Area. Indeed if we are going to use their definition then there alone then there are a number of other things in the article that need to change. What I had done was center the overall article around the BAHEP's definition but bring up the fact that other areas around the bay are also considered Bay Area communities by some sources (which is reflected in the map at the top).

Question to everybody: What is the best way to write this definition section? I don't believe the recent edits are quite the right solution but I don't know that the way I had it was necessarily the best either.

Here's what I had before:

The Galveston Bay Area is not a Metropolitan Statical Area (MSA) defined by the U.S. Office of Management and Budget but rather it is a portion of the larger Houston–Sugar Land–Baytown MSA (i.e. Houston-Galveston or Greater Houston). Nevertheless the region has traditionally had an identity distinct from Houston albeit not always a cohesive one. Still there is no universally agreed upon definition of what constitutes the "Bay Area".
The Bay Area Houston Economic Partnership (BAHEP), a business and community organization centered in Clear Lake, defines the Bay Area as a cluster of bayside communities extending from Pasadena in the north to Kemah and League City in the south.[1] However, the BAHEP's definition is based entirely on the communities that have chosen to join and, as such, its definition is subject to change. Still, with the notable exception of Baytown, these communities together represent the bulk of the populous that lives on the coast of the bay.
Some other less common definitions of the Bay Area include the following.
  • The mainland coastline between the ship channel and Galveston from Pasadena to Texas City.
  • Pasadena, Baytown, and the entire ship channel waterfront in addition to nearby communities such as Clear Lake.
  • The entire mainland coastline including Anahuac.
  • The entire Houston-Galveston metro area (unusual but not unheard of).
  • Clear Lake City, the community in extreme southeast Houston and Pasadena that has grown up around the Johnson Space Center.

--Mcorazao (talk) 16:22, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Unless you can find WP:RS in third party publications for the other "less common" definitions, then they should be removed. This is why I removed them in my previous edits. I know they may be "generally known" but unless they are sourced, they fall under WP:OR --Nsaum75 (talk) 17:05, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
Well, I can find references for these others. Depending on which definition the "authoritativeness" of the sources may not be fantastic. And although the BAHEP is an authoritative source and they have claimed the term "Bay Area" I do not think it is fair to say that they own the term (i.e. they are authoritative for saying that theirs is one established definition but theirs cannot be claimed to be the only widely used definition).
I was more asking, though, about how to write this section (i.e. assuming we have sources for every statement). My version perhaps meandered a little too much. But using the BAHEP definition alone is not NPOV.
--Mcorazao (talk) 17:49, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
BTW, some quick references illustrating various definitions of the term.
--Mcorazao (talk) 18:24, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Article development

After giving this article time to "grow", I am not sure that this article is developing in such a way, that the majority of the information presented in the article is necessary. Much of the information is a duplication of Greater Houston, a geographic area of which the Galveston Bay Area is part. While I do not discount that some sort of article on the Galveston Bay Area is needed, if WP:RS are available, the in-depth nature of some of the information is not warranted. The Galveston Bay Area is a loosely defined geographic area, however the article is written as if it was a incorporated entity with its own distinct and unique boundaries, government, history, and economy (as opposed to that of a greater whole). We do not have similar in-depth articles for geographic areas like Galveston Island, Mustang Island, the Golden Triangle or Clear Lake City. In fact, Brazosport, an area which has more refined boundaries and a number of entities that use the geographic name, doesn't even have a stand alone article. I move that relevant information be struck from the article and/or merged into a section Greater Houston, while a simple geographic/demographic remain as a placeholder and with links to associated cities. --Nsaum75 (talk) 18:51, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
Nsaum75, I am not clear what you are suggesting. Are you suggesting turning this into a links page? I have no specific objection to merging some details that may be more appropriate elsewhere. But I believe that, some specific details aside (maybe some things could be abbreviated), the article in its general present form is reasonable.
Some specific thoughts:
  • Obviously the Greater Houston article currently has no history, demographics, or some other info contained in this one. And the Houston and History of Houston articles lack the majority of the information contained here (even setting aside less important topics like "Media").
  • Trying to merge, say, just the history, economy, and demographics info into any of those still makes no sense since, if you include that much detail about the whole metro area any of those articles would get way too long.
  • Granted, a lot of the details could be dispersed into articles about individual towns. By the same argument, we can get rid of History of the United States since the histories of the individual states should be able to represent all of that info. The justification for the history of the nation as a whole is that it can give you an understanding of the larger picture that you would not get from discussions of the individual pieces (indeed, in researching this and connecting some of the individual pieces I learned a lot myself).
  • I have no idea whether Brazosport deserves an article since I know little about it. But taking Galveston Island as an example, the question is whether there is enough of a distinction between Galveston and Galveston Island, or more properly whether there is enough notability in that distinction, to justify making both articles so in depth. The answer is obviously no. Clear Lake City, I would argue, is a little incomplete.
  • The Bay Area does have substantially distinct history, a distinct economic base, and distinct cultural elements from Houston and other areas (if this were not true, frankly, the various economic partnerships that have been built would have died because they would be seen as useless). Granted the area's history is intertwined in a lot of ways with Houston but then so is Galveston.
  • And the population and particularly the economic impact of the area certainly make it significant.
  • As a point of comparison Oakland, California is roughly the same size as the Galveston Bay Area and certainly it has a high degree of overlap with the San Francisco Bay Area. Yet the Oakland article is by no means small.
Certainly I don't object to discussing chopping down a few things. The "Media" section is not particularly important but some other metro articles have it. The demographics section is a bit long. I guess we could use the BAHEP stats alone if that seems preferable. And there are miscellaneous other details that are not essential but they round out the article a little. The geographic/climactic information is not absolutely essential but the article stands on its own better if it is there (I could similarly argue that Galveston doesn't need a climate section since it is very similar to Houston but there are differences and, regardless, the article stands on its own better by having it).
Anyway, can you be more specific about your suggestions?
--Mcorazao (talk) 22:23, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
WhisperToMe, we have done exactly what you are suggesting already? What are you getting at?
--Mcorazao (talk) 22:23, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
I took a look at the article and now it is doing exactly that. I was replying to Nsaum's idea regarding how the areas needed to be defined. WhisperToMe (talk) 22:51, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
BTW, if it is helpful a few thoughts on what makes the Bay Area distinct from most of the Houston and the inland areas.
  • Aerospace is huge in the Bay Area. There is only a little bit of aerospace in Houston or other areas.
  • Commercial fishing is a big deal in the Bay Area (it is the second most productive bay in the nation). Fishing is a minor factor in Houston.
  • The largest refineries and petrochemical facilities as well as the largest concentrations of them are in the Bay Area, not Houston.
  • The climate in the Bay Area is more moderate than Houston. The differences aren't huge but it is a reason some people choose to live there.
  • Hurricanes are a much bigger deal in the Bay Area than Houston.
  • The coastal ecosystems are the draw for ecotourists in the Bay Area. Not much of that in Houston.
  • The Texas revolution started and ended in the Bay Area, not Houston.
--Mcorazao (talk) 22:45, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
1) No, I don't feel should be an article of just "links", but I also don't feel it is appropriate to be as in depth as it has become. I also still feel the duplication of information available in other "local" articles (esp. Greater Houston/Houston articles etc) is unnecessary. The Bay Area is a geographic area that is poorly defined (read: conflicting) in available sources (using the term Galveston Bay Area or Bay Area). Furthermore I'm concerned there is a lot of unintended WP:OR being inserted.
Take for example the statement:
"The Galveston Bay Area is relatively prosperous with the major portions of the local economy built primarily around aerospace, petrochemical, and other high tech industries. "
Is there a source that specifically says this about the "Galveston Bay Area" (GBA) or is this a conclusion being drawn due to the fact that many cities in the area have these industries in them? While I am not disagreeing the nature of the local economy, there needs to be a source that specifically states this as a fact about "Galveston Bay Area" or "Bay Area". There are other instances similar OR statements are made as well.
While I do appreciate all the work Mcorazao has put into this (and its obvious that its been no small undertaking), I still do not feel duplicating content is necessary or appropriate for this type of article. --Nsaum75 (talk) 04:24, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the acknowledgement of the effort. :-)
Replies:
  • Whether or not there is WP:OR in the text is a separate issue from whether the article has too much content or too much duplication of content. We seem to keep tripping over this mixing of issues which -- I feel -- confuses the discussion.
  • The best way to handle OR concerns is to tag them in the article. Simply making a blanket statement that there are lots of OR concerns and mentioning one example is, at best, not extremely helpful and, at worst, unfair.
  • Honestly at this point I think the actual overlap in terms of content with other articles is pretty low. There are specific sub-sections with a high degree of overlap but these represent a small portion of the overall article. As an example, if you really look at the History there is very little of it that is duplicated anywhere in Wikipedia (at least that I've seen). And there is even less duplication in any single article.
  • Granted we can, say, move all of the History content to Greater Houston but, as I say, to go into that much detail for all of Greater Houston in one article would be too much.
  • I do agree that the area is "poorly defined" but in a general sense that can be said of any area. The Houston-Sugarland-Baytown MSA boundary is really just a very arbitrary line that the OMB drew. Frankly we could argue all day about what communities make sense to be included in any particular metro area and which ones don't. The only thing you can say about an MSA is that the federal government drew that line and so it is a convenient way to focus the discussion.
  • There are numerous other good examples of very reasonable and informative articles that cover ill-defined topics with no single definition that is universally agreed upon:
Additionally I can find in numerous metro area articles where the writers explicitly mention that commonly used definitions do not always match the MSA (e.g. see South Florida). And beyond that even the OMB has different definitions for metro areas (MSA vs. CSA, which are typically munged into single Wikipedia articles). This in and of itself indicates that even the OMB acknowledges the inherent ambiguity in defining a metro area.
  • If you are suggesting that we should have a more strict definition of the subject matter of the article I think that is a reasonable notion. Truthfully, I have had a pretty strict definition in mind in writing the article essentially treating the BAHEP definition as the "MSA" (i.e. the "core" communities) and then treating the "union" of all of the common definitions as the "CSA". This can be stated more explicitly and/or we can discuss the appropriate definition.
--Mcorazao (talk) 14:24, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
P.S. Regarding the statement you mentioned about the economy the BAHEP site mentions these things in multiple places. Since I have cited them to death I figured an obvious statement like this would not be controversial but I'll go ahead and cite. --Mcorazao (talk) 14:34, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
P.P.S. As a point of comparison, this article is currently 53K in size. The following are the sizes of articles discussing areas of comparable size.
  • Comment: Sorry I can't help more. I am a Dallasite, who hasn't been to Houston more than 2-3 times. I feel torn between the two arguments. I personally don't believe it should be deleted. I think the arguments above (Staten Island, South Side (Chicago), and Oakland, CA) to me show satisfactory precedence for keeping article. However, I do believe that the page needs two things: More sources. Several paragraphs do not have any. And several sections should be merged. I feel the whole transportation section should be a single section. Hurricane Ike should be merged into Modern Times. I am not a fan of the school districts section, and Indigenous people should be merged with Europeans. Ultimately, much of the information on this article would be better suited for Wiki Travel. See specifically Houston. But I think more comment is needed on this page, because as i said earlier, I am not very knowledgeable about the subject. Oldag07 (talk) 05:15, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
Comment I just wanted to chime in since I seem to be the editor bringing up most of the issues; while I may disagree with some of the content and/or the direction this article has been going, I am in no way intending to demean or criticize the time and effort that Mcorazao has put into the article. The dedication they have put forth is admirable and, IMHO, an asset to the encyclopedia. --Nsaum75 (talk) 05:43, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Answering questions from my talk page:

  • I do want to add some more sources but looking at, say, Los Angeles Area as an example the article seems to have a similar density of citations. Are there particularly sections you are concerned about citing?
  • As someone dealing with a few featured articles, I tend to look at FA's as the golden standard for citation density, rather than regular articles. I think the current density keeps the page from deletion but these are sections that I think need more references.
  • Early indigenous settlements
  • First few paragraphs of demographics
  • Transportation section
Moreover, Nsaus75 is correct on this point, you need more sources that explicitly are about the "bay area". I know it is difficult, but this page has a few, which is a good start.
  • Comparing this to Los Angeles Area, San Francisco Bay Area, Dallas-Fort Worth Metroplex it looks like they cover area attractions much more than what I have put in the article. I am not clear what criteria you're suggesting for moving information to WikiTravel.
  • I am not WikiTravel user or editor, so i am the wrong person to talk to on this issue. There just seems to be so many lists on this page . . . Maybe too much for an article. I guess we should wait for more opinions to come through.

Again best of luck with everything. Oldag07 (talk) 12:39, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, BTW, Oldag07. --Mcorazao (talk) 02:10, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Taking a little break

Folks, since there have been some concerns raised about the rate at which the article has been changing I was holding off on further modifications (even to correct problems) for a bit to give anybody who is interested an opportunity to review, comment, tag, or modify themselves.

Thanks.

--Mcorazao (talk) 02:09, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

P.S. Oldag07 and Nsaum75 pointed out that so far I have been to some degree basing how I develop this article on articles that are not necessarily at a very high class rating. I'll propose using the following two highly-rated articles as models for future editing.
  • Houston - Obviously a good example since it deals with a closely related topic
  • South Side (Chicago) - An example of an ill-defined region that is part of a larger metropolitan area
--Mcorazao (talk) 02:52, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Sources & OR

I have tagged this article as needing better sourcing. The excessive use of primary and self-published sources in this article is problematic; as myself and other editors have noted. I still feel that a certain amount of WP:OR is on-going in terms of conveying what sourced material says. --Nsaum75 (talk) 19:24, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

I've provided a list of proposed sources for the history section on my talk page. [1]. Karanacs (talk) 19:32, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
Thanks to both for the feedback.
Nsaum75, I appreciate your efforts in helping me identify text that can use better citations or more NPOV wording. I'm trying to improve a bit at a time. Nevertheless you seem to be holding me to a standard that I am not sure is warranted and I am still trying to figure out why that this. If I compare this article to Houston and South Side (Chicago), two FA-rated articles, some types of things you have raised concern about are less sourced there than here. As a specific example you previously removed the text on the thunderstorms and winds, which I took from the Houston article, you argued that it was not supported by the references. Mind you, I don't mind adding additional references but this was a clear case where what was good enough for an FA-rated article was not good enough for me.
Although I do agree there are areas for improvement I don't personally see that an OR citation is fair (I cannot imagine a reason that SYNTH is appropriate). More importantly, since you have not elaborated on the larger concerns or what needs to be done it's not really appropriate (in other words, if there is a large scale concern you need to spell it out). If you have concerns about specific statements please continue to tag them or improve them (which, again, does not mean deleting text just because the particular reference provided does not support the statement). If you have a larger concern about whole sections, please elaborate in this Talk page. That is what it is for.
I have gone to a lot of trouble to search for quality citations to make you personally happy. At present, of the 112 references in the article, I have no self-published sources. I have only 5 lower-quality secondary/tertiary sources:
Although I know their info to be correct I need to identify better sources. Approximately 2/3 of the rest of the references could be classified as primary sources (depending on how you define that exactly). Looking at the Houston article the primary sources are perhaps 1/2 - 2/3. With topics like modern geographic areas it is really unavoidable that primary sources will be heavily used. This, of course, means there needs to be more careful scrutiny than you might have with, say, Pythagorean theorem. But it does not mean that there is anything wrong.
To be frank I think the sourcing is pretty decent (for a new article) albeit not "A" quality yet and I've worked very hard to stick to NPOV.
Thanks.
--Mcorazao (talk) 20:39, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
P.S. You might want to try taking advantage of the "dubious" template which I notice you never use. This is a helpful way to clarify your concern with a particular passage. --Mcorazao (talk) 20:39, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

I think I am going to politely bow out of this discussion. I personally think the page is doing well. It is a work in progress. More sources can be used, but that could be said even about many of our featured articles. I also respect the concerns of the people who are critical of the page's current state. The region this page describes isn't well defined like a Dallas or a Houston, and I understand why people would desire more sources. In the end, after reading a fantastic article by Time, ultimately most of the major topics in the world on wikipedia have been written about. The longer wikipedia is around, the more obscure the topics it will cover. The more obscure the topic, the less "notable" they will seem, and the harder it is to find "good" sources on these topics. In the end, we just have to accept that. Oldag07 (talk) 04:12, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Comment on boundaries

FYI: The issue of the areas boundaries keeps coming up in conversations outside of this page. I personally believe the current text describing the boundaries is reasonable. My personal attitude toward this at this point is to say, generically speaking, the Galveston Bay Area is defined by the mainland shoreline of the bay, period. This is simple and unambiguous. It is worthwhile to mention that different sources refer to differrent subsections when they say "Bay Area" which is what I have done. But trying to say that "most" sources refer to some particular subsection and therefore the other parts of the bay should be fully excluded seems either WP:POV or WP:OR, even if it is strictly true. It seems to me it is better just to use the term in a more literal sense since that is one of the ways the term is used and go from there.

One common objection is Anahuac. Granted, most people do not mean Anahuac when they say "Bay Area". But some do (certainly many people in Anahuac consider the town a "Bay Area" community). If Anahuac were a major city with a substantially unique economy I'd say maybe trying to separate keep that separate in some fashion makes sense. However, we are talking about a sparsely populated area whose numbers, demographically and economically, make little difference to the overall discussion. In my mind it is part of the "Greater Bay Area" whereas Clear Lake/Pasadena/Baytown is the downtown and Texas City, Dicksinson, etc. are suburbs (Texas City being a "suburb" in the same sense that Sugarland is a "suburb" of Houston). Mind you, I would never state this in the article since it is obviously OR/POV but I am simply offering a viewpoint if it makes the scope of the article more palatable.

--Mcorazao (talk) 21:20, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Advertisement, neutrality and fan POV

This article reads like something that one would find in the local Chamber of Commerce brochure. Cleary, the tone of this article promotes the "Galveston Bay Area" and most of its sources comes from various local chamber of commerce offices, tourist magazines or websites, and other fansites.

It seems the single major contributor of this article wants to create an illustion of such major distinction for the "Galveston Bay Area" within Houston–Sugar Land–Baytown. In addition, the tone and style of this article is written as if "Galveston Bay Area" is an established or incorporated entity, which it is not.

So far, only the history, geography, demographics, and education sections contain reliable sources and are neutral in tone. The culture section is heavily biased in tone and sounds like it comes directly from a brochure.

RJN (talk) 07:37, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

RJN, thanks for moving the discussion to this page as I requested. I appreciate it.
Folks, I still am not sure I totally get the reasons for the hostility this article generates. In general many of the complaints listed here could be made about the Houston article or many other well-rated articles. And the arguments as to whether the Bay Area deserves to be treated as distinct in some fashion apply equally well to Greater Houston and South Side (Chicago) among others.
I am getting the impression that a component of this is some Houston bias (mind you, I myself grew up in Houston and never lived in the Bay Area so I have no inherent bias in favor of the area myself). Houstonians like to call their town the Space City and the Energy City and other such things and any suggestion that any part of that identity could be somehow divided from the main part of Houston can seem offensive. But Wikipedia is not a place for POV rants. Certainly there are legitimate reasons to argue that the ties in the Bay Area are not necessarily stronger than the ties to Houston. But that's not really the point. There are unique aspects to the topic and there are unique things that tie it together and it is seen as distinct to one degree or another by some secondary sources (whether or not all sources see it that way, again, is not the point).
The purpose of this article is not to critique its own reason for existing. Articles in general should tend to cast their topics in a somewhat positive light. After all, if you can't come up with anything interesting to say about the topic then why have the article in the first place?
--Mcorazao (talk) 15:14, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
P.S. RJN, thanks for the effort at inline tagging the article and correcting mistakes. As far as the rest of it, my recommendation would be that you do your own research and make your own edits. --Mcorazao (talk) 15:28, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
RJN, I went through a lot of your tags. Unfortunately I have to say that some don't appear to have been added in good faith (the one that floored me the most was your trying to argue that the Bay Area Houston Economic Partnership is not authoritative in its own self definition). I have replaced the OR tags with "Citation needed" tags. If you have genuine OR concerns please retag only the sentences that where there is a genuine concern. Simply not liking the way a sentence is written or wanting to see more sources backing it up is not a genuine basis to claim OR. --Mcorazao (talk) 16:42, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
I've gone through all the tags and added many new citations. Please review. --Mcorazao (talk) 15:42, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Review of overall concerns

Folks, this article still seems to be ruffling feathers, for reasons that I am still not entirely clear about. It was suggested that I put out another Rfc.

The question is specifically

What are the broad or overall concerns with the article?

I would make two specific requests of those commenting:

  • Please make your comments actionable. Simply making blanket statements like it is biased or the sources are bad doesn't help much. How specifically do you think we need to modify the article? What type of approach would remove bias? What types of sources in particular subsections would be best to use?
  • Please don't dive bomb. Coming in and leaving a nasty comment and then not being willing to discuss is not very helpful (and actually tends to take the discussion backward).

Thanks.

--Mcorazao (talk) 21:28, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Changing this to a peer review request. --Mcorazao (talk) 23:12, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
Archive 1Archive 2
  1. ^ City Data Profiles, Bay Area Houston Economic Partnership
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Galveston_Bay_Area/Archive_1&oldid=317374067"