Wikipedia:Featured article review/San Francisco/archive1

San Francisco

San Francisco (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

• Featured article review/San Francisco/archive1

Notified: DaveOinSF, Minesweeper, Paul.h, Kurykh, WikiProject California, WikiProject Transport, WikiProject Cities, WikiProject Technology, diff for talk page notification 2021-03-21

Review section

I am nominating this featured article for review because of unresolved issues of sourcing—both unsourced content and sources that are not high-quality RS. (t · c) buidhe 03:58, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

Geography articles are among the hardest to keep up to date, but San Francisco has been a particular chore for as long as I can remember, and has never been well enough tended to maintain criteria, or well watched. As I wrote on talk, “This article has extreme MOS:SANDWICHing throughout, considerable dated text, uncited text, and short choppy sections.” Samples only (there is much more):

• Jam up of images in History section.
• Uncited text sample Media section (but its everywhere).
• Dated text sample, look at the first line in media, which breaches MOS:CURRENT and is cited to a 2007 source. Similar is found throughout the article, and it appears the article has not been updated since its 2008 FAR.
• Short choppy sections, see Early education, Vision Zero, there are also sections that breach MOS:HEAD (repeating words, eg Transportation is an empty section followed by Public transportation). Buidhe you mentioned sources that are not high quality or reliable, but did not provide any samples. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 10:52, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

[1], [2], [3] are just 3 examples, there are more. Also a lot of the sources are outdated, not having been updated/replaced since 2007 or earlier. (t · c) buidhe 11:05, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

This article certainly is suffering from years of Wiki-junk-accretion, but it seems that fixing it fairly easy and is mostly a matter of deleting things. It has been previously suggested that in the majority of cases where there is an assertion of fact without a reference, just delete it. As for all of the pictures, they can be fixed the same way. One item I'm confused about, however, is the complaint that "a lot of the sources are outdated." if a source truthfully backs up a fact in the article, why should we care that it dates from 2007? If a fact is outdated, I can see that it should be updated with more recent information, but I don't understand how the date of a source has any bearing on accuracy by itself. We are dealing with a contemporary geographical place here, not using the 1912 Encyclopedia Britannica for a source on nuclear physics. Paul (Talk)

What it means is that you need to go through every bit of text cited to an old source and determine if newer data is available; it usually is. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:06, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

I generally agree with you regarding long-standing facts (i.e., the population in 1890), but not with readily-changeable facts and figures like the current population and demographics. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 19:03, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

• Move to FARC lack of progress on fixing the above issues (t · c) buidhe 03:48, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
• Move to FARC, not much happening. Hog Farm _Talk 20:04, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

FARC section

Issues raised in the review section include sourcing, currency, and organization. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:16, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

• Delist lack of progress (t · c) buidhe 22:19, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
• Delist. Tagged for unsourced statements, in need of update, self-published sources and needing page numbers. DrKay (talk) 21:12, 18 December 2021 (UTC)
• Delist, needed improvements are not occurring. Hog Farm _Talk 03:39, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
• Delist recent edits have been minor, the history section needs some recent events included. Z1720 (talk) 18:26, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
• Closing note: This removal candidate has been delisted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please leave the {{featured article review}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:42, 24 December 2021 (UTC)