Wikipedia talk:WikiProject San Francisco Bay Area/Collaboration

	California portal This page 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.CaliforniaWikipedia:WikiProject CaliforniaTemplate:WikiProject CaliforniaCalifornia articles
	San Francisco Bay Area portal This page is supported by San Francisco Bay Area task force.

February 2007

I think it'd be great if this could be up and running, so I chose Oakland for this month's collaboration. This is just to introduce this idea. In the future, I hope the collaboration is determined democratically by the members of the project. Anyone is welcome to propose a nomination for March. — Emiellaiendiay 03:59, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

March 2007

Proposed article: San Francisco

It's in serious need of proper citations if its going to be FA. I'll also note that even though the San Francisco article is at FA status, there are entire sections without proper citation. Peter G Werner 04:50, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps then San Francisco should be next month's article — the goal being maintaining its FA status by making sure it still qualifies. — Emiellaiendiay 04:58, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Continue the discussion by posting your own thoughts.

— Emiellaiendiay 06:00, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DaveOinSF asked: "What sections in San Francisco need citations? It's substantially identical to how it appeared when it became an FA in September. I'd rather we work on articles that are in need of more serious work than that one"

"Geography" (intro part) and "Neighborhoods" – almost no citations; "Beaches and parks" – no citations, even for the statement that Baker Beach contains one of the only existing colonies of Hesperolinon congestum; "Government" – very few citations; "Performing arts" – no citations; "Roads and highways", "Public transportation", and "Seaports" – no citations. Considering Wikipedia's standards about citing sources, I'm surprised the San Francisco article made it to Feature Article status with those oversights. I haven't challenged FA-status for this article since I think with a little (well, maybe a lot) of reference-checking the article could be brought up to FA status, but I think it needs to be done. Peter G Werner 01:03, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

These are minor issues that can be dealt with at any time. San Francisco does, after all, have 98 in-line citations, and, during its FAC, was criticized for too many citations. I'll post your suggestions on the San Francisco talk page, but strongly oppose using this Wikiproject to attempt to make major revisions to that article.

I would strongly encourage this Wikiproject to devote its energies towards Bay Area articles that are not as high profile and do not receive widespread attention from the Wikipedia community as a whole. I'll propose a few articles later on.--DaveOinSF 16:16, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Too many citations? If a fact is stated, its source should be cited – its as simple as that. Most Wikipedia article don't live up to this, of course, but Feature Articles are supposed to be held to very strict standards, as I understand it. Peter G Werner 09:24, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, no, it's not as simple as that. There's a minority of Wikipedians who (legitimately) complain that in-line citations are being used to excess; footnoting every single little fact when that fact is common knowledge (e.g - "Interstate 80 begins at the approach to the Bay Bridge and is the only direct automobile link to the East Bay." This is stating a fact, but a footnote for this sort of thing would be ridiculous) or footnoting extensively when including general reference material is preferable (e.g. - a history reference book).

While I agree on some of your specific comments (the Baker Beach plant, for instance), I think much of your criticism is a bit of overkill.--DaveOinSF 17:34, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm responding to this belatedly. Whatever the concerns are about "excessive citation", the fact that entire sections are going without any kind of citation is simply unacceptable if an article is to be considered as having proper citation (which a Feature Article is supposed to have, by definition). I think you misunderstand the purpose of citations – Wikipedia isn't supposed to be original research, therefore, all facts stated in Wikipedia need to come from verifiable citable sources. If an entire block of paragraphs come from one source, then one citation is fine; if a block of text cites multiple facts from multiple sources, multiple citations are called for. Entire sections being without citation? Clearly that's content that is "quoting from memory" or "original research" and unacceptable in a Feature Article. Calling for citations in such cases is not "overkill", it is Wikipedia policy. Peter G Werner 22:13, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Per User:BlankVerse's suggestions below:

Golden Gate Park - this article completely lacks inline citations, external links is essentially spam, and I don't quite understand the division between "Major Features" and "Minor Features".
Joshua A. Norton - this article lost is FA status last year. Check the FA review process to learn how to improve it.

--DaveOinSF 16:24, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Let's make a decision

March is almost here (at least by Pacific Standard Time). Here are the possiblities:

San Francisco, with focus on maintaining FA status by adding citations where needed
Golden Gate Park (see comments and suggestions by DaveOinSF, above)
Joshua A. Norton, with focus on restoring previous FA status

So, which would you choose?

— Emiellaiendiay 03:45, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would favour either San Francisco to maintain FA (by the way, i should be able to dig up the H. congestum source) or Golden Gate Park, the latter of which really will need a lot of work (e.g. there is virtually nothing presently on geology and natural history for example). Also i really agree with DaveOinSF's comment that, in the future, we should eschew high profile articles; given the worldwide wikipedia community, they are a built in hornet's nest. Anlace 06:28, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm fine with any of the proposed articles. How about the final decision be left up to Anlace, who is currently leading in Jumpaclass? — Emiellaiendiay 06:46, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I also vote for San Francisco – I know some people don't like going over an article that's already been awarded FA status, but work on it really needs to be done. I think there are some other things the article needs beyond just reference checking, such as a section on "Geography: Natural history" (yes, San Francisco has a natural history :), so it wouldn't all just be reference checking. (However, Golden Gate Park would be my next choice.) Peter G Werner 19:02, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A suggestion:

I've seen a number of WikiProjects that have gotten burnt out on collaborations because all of the collaborations are major topics that require quite a bit of work to improve. You might think about occasionally interspersing smaller or for 'fun' articles (e.g. Emperor Norton) to allow some variety and breathing space between tackling the major articles.

There are also two former Featured articles| with Bay Area connections, which should be easier to improve: Joshua A. Norton (aka Emperor Norton) and Golden Gate Park. Blank Verse 12:13, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rotation of collaborations

I would encourage a rotating schedule of collaborations. Since February's article is East Bay based, and March's is likely to be San Francisco-based, I would suggest that April's be based on an article involving Silicon Valley or the Peninsula and May's be based on the North Bay or Wine Country region. This way, we spread the love around.--DaveOinSF 16:36, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's a great idea. I second it. — Emiellaiendiay 22:06, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And I third. Peter G Werner 09:26, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

and i fourth it. Anlace 06:19, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Back to Oakland for a Minute

Any thought on possibly recapping/critiquing what was accomplished on this page (and future pages) after its collaborative month? --Fizbin 23:35, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And seeing as how this is April, did we ever come up with a March page? Or April??--Fizbin 23:57, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is it still going?

It's well over a month since anyone has posted anything here, so I am wondering of this Collaboration nomination is still going or not. Hydrogen Iodide 19:45, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]