Jump to content

Talk:Grapevine, Texas

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

map is wrong

[edit]

the current map shows the city as being in North Dallas county east of DFW airprot. so...... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.129.182.251 (talk • contribs) 23:40, 31 March 2007

The map is incorrect... Grapevine is in Tarrant County...--Broux 13:24, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, the dot should be moved a few pixels to the left; anyone know how to fix it? - Davandron | Talk 14:24, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Grapevine, Texas/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Dana boomer (talk · contribs) 19:04, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I'll be reviewing this article for GA status, and should have my full review up shortly. Dana boomer (talk) 19:04, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose, no copyvios, spelling and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
    • Per WP:LEAD, an article of this length should have a lead of between three and four paragraphs. The lead should appropriately summarize the body of the article, without including information not contained in the body.
    • External links should be turned into references or moved to the External links section, rather than being linked directly through the text of the article.
    • The Media section is currently a mostly unsourced list of trivia. How is it relevant to Grapevine that these media events happened in the town? Did the filming affect anything in the town? Is it a notable/common place for film-makers?
    • Is the Education section truly complete? For example, the town website says there is at least one alternative school? And is there really only one private high school? I live in a town smaller than Grapevine, and we have three (one Christian, one Catholic, and one high-end college prep). Is there a community college in the town? What are the nearest two-year/four-year schools?
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
    • There are numerous places throughout the article that are lacking referencing, many of which include statistics and/or opinions. For example (and these are just examples, there are additional places that need referencing), the Geography section, the Demographics section, the Crime section and many of the Transportation subsections.
    • The link check tool found 16 dead links, see the report here. A number of these are already tagged in the article, but a few are not.
    • Why are we using a concealed handgun manual as a source for population data? (Ref #14, Bird, Chris)
    • Numerous refs missing various pieces of information: titles, publishers, accessdates, etc. I even see some that are simply bare urls.
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:
    No edit wars, but also obviously no push to clean up the article before bringing it to GAN.
  6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
    • Image galleries are discouraged. There is enough un-illustrated text in the article that a number of the images in the gallery can be moved up to the body of the article. The remainder can be linked to through a link to the Commons category.
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:
    I am going to fail this article's GA nomination at this point, due to the large amount of work that it needs to meet GA criteria. The referencing is the main point where work is needed - once this is addressed the article will be much closer to GA status. I have not checked NPOV compliance, coverage, image licensing or done a detailed prose check, due to the amount of work needed in other areas. In general, a nominator should conduct work on an article before nominating it for GA - the majority of articles floating around WP are not ready for GAN and should have at least a quick cleaning before a nomination. Dana boomer (talk) 19:28, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Reverting of my Jack Ruby edit

[edit]

Hi John

I would like for us to have a chance to discuss this matter just between us before involving other editors, etc.

I can understand how you might feel that going into any detail about Jack Ruby's legal drama might be off topic.  But here is the reason I made the edit:  to say that someone was convicted of a crime, and then completely fail to mention that that conviction was reversed (assuming of course that that was the case) is downright misleading.  It would be better to just say something like "the man who killed presidential assassin Lee Harvey Oswald." (Ruby himself admitted doing the deed.)  Or something like "... several cabins near Grapevine Lake previously owned by Jack Ruby, the man convicted (conviction later reversed) in the murder of presidential assassin Lee Harvey Oswald."

I don't feel that Jack Ruby's legal history needs to be mentioned at all.  But I feel very strongly that, if you're going to point out that he was convicted, then it also needs to be somehow pointed out that the conviction was reversed.  That can easily be accomplished by adding literally no more than three words to the article ("conviction later reversed.")  Would you be agreeable to my suggestion?   
Richard
Richard27182 (talk) 06:59, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Problem solved. The copy stated that the cabin was located nearby, making the entire bit off topic for this article. However, for your future reference, the best practice for "clarifying" the issue of his criminal record would be to remove all discussion of it from the article and leave his name wikilinked. Discussion of his status of non conviction should remain in his article. I would also suggest you read WP:TRUTH. When well over half the nation witnessed him kill Oswald, whether or not he was legally convicted is quite moot. 18:53, 21 May 2015 (UTC)


     Hi John.  Yes, I agree that the problem has been solved.  Also I appreciate your mentioning the alternate way of dealing with it by removing all discussion of Ruby himself and just leaving his name wikilinked.  Surprisingly that solution never occurred to me, even though it is probably the best solution of all.  I will keep that approach in mind in case I encounter a similar issue in the future in another article.
    As you can probably tell, I am *very* new at this.  I figure the best way to gain experience as a Wikipedia editor is to make some minor contributions to Wikipedia articles, and also to learn how to interact with other editors.  (And I've found that doing the one often leads to the other.)  I also intend to read as much as I can of the instructional material provided by Wikipedia for new Wikipedians (including the WP:TRUTH article you mentioned).
    Just one last thing.  You seem to be an experienced Wikipedia editor.  Would it be OK if I occasionally consult you if I have a Wikipedia-related problem I'm unable to resolve myself?
Rich
Richard27182 (talk) 06:18, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 7 external links on Grapevine, Texas. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 00:23, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Grapevine, Texas. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 23:28, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Grapevine, Texas. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:40, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Grapevine is a suburb of both Dallas and Fort Worth

[edit]

Stop your edit warring, Smarty9108 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.64.16.226 (talk) 18:44, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Cities closer to Dallas (such as Colleyville, Euless, and Lewsiville), are considered suburbs of Dallas. Oh and check your signature and please add a statement before you edit an article. So you STOP your disruptive editing or I will hereby notify administrators. troublednbored (talk) 20:01, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sources:

http://www.grapevinetxonline.com/2010/07/grapevine-not-in-the-top-10-of-dallas-best-suburbs/

Neither of the above sources meet the requirements of reliability for sources on Wikipedia. What you would need is a newspaper, book, or magazine that states this city is a suburb of Dallas, or Ft. Worth, or Cincinnati, for that matter. However, this is an encyclopedia and we deal in facts. Why not just say it's part of the Dallas–Fort Worth metroplex, the statistical area that includes Grapevine? That is an unambiguous, undeniable fact and not the subject of a Wikipedia editor's or a journalist's opinion. John from Idegon (talk) 19:34, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
: Done I will accept that, since it is more neutral. @ John from Idegon troublednbored (talk) 21:14, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Grapevine, Texas. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:27, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Grapevine, Texas. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:57, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Grapevine, Texas. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:50, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Grapevine,_Texas&oldid=1207397069"