Talk:Lawton, Oklahoma

Lawton, Oklahoma is currently a Places good article nominee. Nominated by Crimsonedge34 (talk) at 08:17, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

An editor has indicated a willingness to review the article in accordance with the good article criteria and will decide whether or not to list it as a good article. Comments are welcome from any editor who has not nominated or contributed significantly to this article. This review will be closed by the first reviewer. To add comments to this review, click discuss review and edit the page.

This article has not yet been rated on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Oklahoma High‑importance

	Oklahoma portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Oklahoma, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of Oklahoma on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.OklahomaWikipedia:WikiProject OklahomaTemplate:WikiProject OklahomaOklahoma
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Cities

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Cities, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of cities, towns and various other settlements on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CitiesWikipedia:WikiProject CitiesTemplate:WikiProject CitiesWikiProject Cities

Lawton, Oklahoma received a peer review by Wikipedia editors, which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.

Template:USCOTW

General Lawton

Information about General Lawton is already contained under Geography. Should it be reverted from the introductory section? Tex 23:48, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. My bad. I didn't notice it there, but it makes sense. Rklawton 01:37, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Candice Earley

This actress has recently been added to Famous People from Lawton. But the article on her does not indicate her connection with Lawton. It says she was born at Ft. Hood, so I can well believe that she may have lived at Ft. Sill at some point. Would someone please edit the article on her to show the Lawton connection? Did she go to Lawton High? Or what? Tex 16:13, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Notable" People

This list of notable people from Lawton is longer than it probably should be. I'm not sure if non-notable college football players and music producers should qualify. There are a few red links too, and most of the entries are unsourced. Any objections to cleaning up this list a little... or a lot? Weathermandan 22:43, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Notable People from Lawton

I was born and raised in Lawton, graduating LHS in 1968. I totally agree that the list of "notable" people from Lawton is too large. I have never heard of any of these people. I wouldn't consider an athlete famous unless the person won an Olympic Medal, the Heisman Trophy, or was inducted in the Hall of Fame. None of the music producers can fall in the "notable" category. Please clean up the list.

BTW, I went to school with Candice Earley (Candy).

Mike Nishimuta 23:05, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Split History

I really like the info the History section provides but I think it might deserve its own article a la History of Oklahoma City and History of Tulsa. The reason being is that the Geography Section needs to be expanded with some climate data and with the history that long the article will too much. Crimsonedge34 (talk) 00:28, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, here's the note about history sections on city articles, found underGuidelines for Wikipedia articles on cities:

Note: History sections can easily become very long with more detail than appropriate for a general overview. While there is no strict rule on how long a section may be, as a general rule of thumb, more than 10 paragraphs or the use of subsection headings might indicate that it should be accompanied by a History of _ main article (using the main template). Only describe the minimum of what is required to understand where the community has come from and let the History of _ article give the details.

Second-level headings are to be avoided since they tend to encourage excessive detail and length and can disrupt cohesion.

See the problem. Okiebradshaw (talk) 20:33, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]