Support - Meets criteria for featured articles, so I don't see why not. -Blackjack48 00:01, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong object Without even looking at the prose, you have at least 3 tags on sections that need to be split, large white spaces created by picture location, two reference styles, one-sentence sections (about jails), trivia and unreferenced notables, a large number of external jumps, and a need for inline citations (example, The Port of San Francisco was once the largest and busiest seaport on the west coast, but that title is now held by the joint ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach.). I suggest WP:PR can help you get the article closer to FA status. Sandy 00:47, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
In "History", I counted seven running paragraphs constructed of just ten sentences. More stubs further down, especially in "Media". Isn't "southeast" one word? Please polish it. Tony 02:01, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Object - The article might need to undergo peer review (and the extensive editings and cleanup that will result) before attaining featured article status. --physicq210 04:12, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
comment lots of info. I don't like the "County jails" and "education" sections though. With that sections cleaned I would support.--Pedro 19:27, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Wow. I guess being listed as a good article doesn't mean anything. -Blackjack48 00:34, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
True; it has little credibility when you look at the process. Tony 15:58, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
this article is much better than some featured articles. The objective of an encyclopaedia article is to explain "everything" about a given subject. This does it well. --Pedro 12:53, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No, the scope of the objectives is considerably wider than that. Tony 01:31, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Totally agree with Tony. Pedro, I suspect you have been misinformed about Wikipedia's goals. Nothing less than high quality writing, neutrality, sourced information and comprehensiveness will make an article through FAC. It's an unfortunate fact that FAC is necessarily a far harsher mistress than GA. I should know: several of my articles haven't made it. This doesn't mean your article is bad, it just means that it hasn't quite gotten to FA quality as yet. - Ta bu shi da yu 11:44, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Object I agree that it is very comprehensive but it fails other criteria in particular 2(a). The prose needs some substantial improvement. At one point there are about 10 consecutive paragraphs that begin with either "The" or "In". --Nebular110 03:49, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
