|This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Texas article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
|Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8|
|Texas has been listed as a level-4 vital article in Geography. If you can improve it, please do. This article has been rated as B-Class by the WikiProject Vital Articles.|
Daily page views
|This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.|
|Texas was one of the Geography and places good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.|
|A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day section on March 30, 2004, December 29, 2008, and December 29, 2009.|
|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
|To-do list for Texas:|
|This subject is featured in the Outline of Texas, which is incomplete and needs further development.|
- Most recent review • •
- Result: I'm going close this discussion as delist. The issues that I pointed out still exist, and would most certainly result in an automatic fail if an article like this were nominated for GA. Aside from the obvious, I would recommend condensing the lead to four paragraphs, and condensing the history section (especially the Pre-European era and Colonization subsections) the Demographics section, and the politics sections, as well as minor condenses throughout the entire article where necessary. This does not, however, mean that a large amount of information needs to be cut. Bneu2013 (talk) 04:21, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
The biggest issue is the article's length. It is currently 15,630 words, and the recommended length is no more than 10,000 words. In addition, there is some content that is missing citations, and information that needs to be updated. Bneu2013 (talk) 04:03, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
- The length here is not inherently a problem; huge sweeping topics often permit larger articles. Having said that, this article passed GAN in 2008 at less than half its current length, meaning most of the text is unassessed. This is a good example of the need for GA sweeps -- there are more than a few articles in this position. It might require delisting, but could also just require a simple tune-up to see what of the added text is useful and polish it up. I've no sufficient grasp of the subject matter to lead such a job. Vami IV? Vaticidalprophet 02:14, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
- I don't feel qualified to lead a reassessment either; however if this no longer meets GA, I don't think its far from it. I do agree that extensive topics such as this can exceed 10,000 words and still pass GA; some other users would disagree with me on this. Bneu2013 (talk) 02:23, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
- I am no expert, but I do happen to live in Texas. I'll have a look at this later in the week, ping me if need be. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 07:53, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
- Forgive me for adding a huge amount of information. It's entirely my fault. - TheLionHasSeen (talk) 13:58, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
Ease of voting
I reverted an edit by User:Alza08 regarding the relative difficulty of voting in Texas. This editor has added rankings of the "easiest" and "hardest" states to vote in many US state articles, sourced by this article.
With language like "hardest state for citizens to vote in", for states like Kentucky, and "easiest state for citizens to vote in", at states like Maine, some readers may interpret this as a "better" or "worse" ranking. (at Iowa, the ranking was added to a section about "civil rights")
Why is this ranking important to Wikipedia's readers? This study shows there is little correlation between states with easier voting laws, and measures of electoral integrity. So how will Wikipedia's readers benefit from knowing how easy it is to vote in a state, when there is little benefit to easier voting? It would be like adding a chart to every US state showing which states have the "easiest" and "hardest" gun laws, without explaining there is little correlation between gun laws and quality of life.
Biden and the Democrats are pursuing easier voting laws, but only because it leads to more votes for Democrats. Should Wikipedia support this with an otherwise meaningless ranking on every state article?
- I have reworded a couple of those as the wording was rather poor. The reference is valid and the added content is not "meaningless". Vsmith (talk) 14:47, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
- While the reference is valid, the drive-by manner in which it was added to all the state articles bothers me. This content belongs in the Elections in... articles, like Elections in Connecticut, where it is already located. I do not support it being added directly to the state articles, and especially not in this drive-by manner of adding a single sentence to every state article without any other context. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 17:56, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks for starting this discussion, I'm coming here from the article on Virginia after seeing a post on WP:USA. I also am bothered by the drive-by nature of slapping this ranking on every single state article in it's own paragraph, particular with the non-descriptive edit summary "expanded". I too was ready to revert the edit, but I read the source, and then instead worked the ranking into the Politics section, since what's apparently notable about VA is the change in ranking from 2016 to 2020 (49th to 12th). I'm not sure it needs to be on every state, as with most state rankings it's most relevant to those at the very top or very bottom. For those in the middle, maybe it would go on Elections in Connecticut if there's a relevant spot, as has been suggested, but not on Connecticut. As to whether this is partisan, I'm going to say "citation needed" to the claim that easier voting (i.e. higher turnout) helps one party over the other, that's probably a myth. But if you were going to include this ranking here on Texas, maybe at the end of the paragraph about Gerrymandering would make sense.-- Patrick Neil, oѺ∞/Talk 01:28, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
Article https://www.liebertpub.com/doi/10.1089/elj.2020.0666 ok how can i help Quiet2 (talk) 07:32, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
Taxation line lacking valid citation
The first line of the third paragraph of the Taxation section reads:"Texas is a "tax donor state"; in 2005, for every dollar Texans paid to the federal government in federal income taxes, the state got back about $0.94 in benefits." This line is both perplexing and its citation does not provide this information. Reference 261 redirects to a page which links to many posts but contains no information on the page itself. I propose this line should be removed if another reference cannot be found and–if another reference is found–the sentence should be clarified. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Venusasaguy (talk • contribs) 14:44, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
There is no information on the "Demographics" section about Texas poverty rate, household or per capita income, age, or marital status. Most other state pages have this information alongside data on race and ethnicity — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abdulrahimb (talk • contribs) 03:14, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
Needs the following capitalization errors fixed by someone with access. All the same word, almost as if someone was following the AP's racist guidelines instead of wikipedia's, and it's especially egregious because of how inconsistent it is:
1) Mid-20th to early 21st century - last sentence "Texas has the largest Black and African American population with over 3.9 million."
2) Race and Ethnicity - last sentence
"At the 2020 census, the racial and ethnic composition of the state was 42.5% white (39.7% non-Hispanic white), 11.8% Black or African American, 5.4% Asian, 0.3% American Indian and Alaska Native, 0.1% Native Hawaiian and other Pacific Islander, 13.6% some other race, 17.6% two or more races, and 39.3% Hispanic and Latino American of any race."
'Black' in the "Black or African American" should not be capitalized unless you're going to link it - in which case capitalize white as well.
3) Religion - 2nd paragraph
"Hispanic or Latino American-dominated Protestant churches and historically Black or African American Protestantism grew to a collective 13% of the Protestant population."
4) Politics - 2nd to last paragraph
"The state's changing demographics may result in a change in its overall political alignment, as a majority population of Black and Hispanic/Latino voters support the Democratic Party" — Preceding unsigned comment added by CapitalizationMan (talk • contribs) 19:35, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
As the Spanish name (and a note regarding its two orthographic variants) has been re-added in the first sentence of the intro paragraph, I suggest to add the IPA pronunciation of the Spanish name along with an audio file of a Spanish speaker pronouncing it, just like the Spanish Wikipedia has it. I cannot add the IPA template nor the audio because the article is semi-protected. 22.214.171.124 (talk) 23:06, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 10 September 2022
|This edit request has been answered. Set the |