Talk:SF Weekly

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject California / San Francisco Bay Area (Rated Start-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject California, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of California 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.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by San Francisco Bay Area task force (marked as Low-importance).
 
WikiProject Journalism (Rated Start-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Journalism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Journalism 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.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

Comments from SF weekly[edit]

Hi. I'm Jake Swearingen, the web editor at SF Weekly. There's several factual errors in the article, which I've taken the liberty of fixing up, including updating our physical address, updating the information about our publisher, changing a few style matters (we're SF Weekly, not the SF Weekly), updating our online offerings, and including more recent awards we've won.

More broadly, would it be possible to get an outside Wiki editor to take a look and making this more neutral in tone? Currently, the article reads as particularly one-sided. The Controversies seems excessive, and the information can be related throughout the article.

It's questionable whether the Armenian controversy is still a notable incident in SF Weekly's past, and the quote from a former web editor seems extraneous.

It would be great if statements from VVM owner Michael Lacey could be included in the section on the Guardian lawsuit. Here is the the memo from Michael Lacey and Jim Larkin.

Finally, the sentence "and enjoys mixed reviews by the Bay Area community" seems puzzling. Surely any media organization in the Bay Area received mixed reviews? A citation, at least, should be included. Thanks for all the work the community has already put into this. (Jsweari (talk) 00:19, 7 July 2011 (UTC))

HQ[edit]

I'm trying to figure out when the HQ moved to the new location. In January 2011 it was still at China Basin Landing WhisperToMe (talk) 07:03, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on SF Weekly. 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.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • 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.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:29, 3 November 2017 (UTC)