Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article review/San Francisco, California/archive1

< Wikipedia:Featured article review‎ | San Francisco, California
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was kept by User:Marskell 15:03, 30 June 2008 [1].

San Francisco, California edit

I do not believe this article meet the current Featured Article criteria. The prose is generally good but could use some polishing (eg. "The gay rights contributions and leadership the city has shown since the 1970s has resulted in the powerful presence gays and lesbians have in civic life."; explanation of what the NFL is and/or what sport the 49ers play). Much of the article is unreferenced (including almost all of the Transportation section). As far as style guidelines, I believe the lead should capture more of the article and the images should not be placed under level 2 headings--"Do not place left-aligned images directly below second-level (===) headings, as this disconnects the heading from the text it precedes. Instead, either right-align the image, remove it, or move it to another relevant location."--in addition, several could use better captions, and now that I'm looking at it, there is an image of a rainbow flag, but the significance of the flag is not mentioned in the article). Several references lack essential information, and consistent reference formatting is needed. GaryColemanFan (talk) 15:37, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you don't like that one sentence (I don't either) please fix it.
The NFL is linked. If you don't know what NFL is, following the link will tell you. If articles defined all potentially unfamiliar terms, they would be 3x as long, extremely tedious, and no one would read them.
On the contrary, very little of the article is unreferenced. It has 107 footnotes, cited 114 times. There are 7072 words in the article, for a ratio of one cite for every 62 words. The policy of WP:Verifiability states that attribution is required for direct quotes and for material that is challenged or likely to be challenged. Please be more specific about unreferenced statements in the article that are direct quotes or material which is likely to be challenged.
Please be more specific about references that "lack essential information" or which are inconsistently formatted.
The Rainbow Flag is linked. See my comment above about NFL.
Standards for featured article are:
1) well-written, comprehensive, factually accurate, neutral, stable. (CHECK)
2a) it has a concise lead summarizing the topic (CHECK)
2b) it has a structure of hierarchical headings (CHECK)
2c) it has consistent citations (CHECK) (please give specifics where you don't believe this is true)
3) it has images where appropriate with succinct captions (CHECK) (note use of "succinct")
4) it stays focused on the main topic without going into unnecessary detail (CHECK) (c.f. NFL and Rainbow Flag)
I think your concerns about the Featured Article status of San Francisco article, fall under the "if you can update or improve it, please do" policy rather than raising any substantive WP:FACR issues. --Paul (talk) 19:39, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to be taking my comments as a personal attack, which is not how they were intended. I do believe, however, that the aricle does not meet the current standards for a Featured Article. In response to your comments:

  1. The sentence was given as an example of prose that could use some work. A Featured Article should be well-written, and a sentence like that indicates that copyediting may be necessary.
  2. As for the NFL, all that needs to be fixed is adding the full title: "...National Football League (NFL)..." Telling people to click on wikilinks if they want to understand the article is not Wikipedia policy, as articles should be clear to all readers.
    Fixed. --Sfmammamia (talk) 18:29, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. As for the references, the article simply isn't up to standards. Entire sections are unreferenced. The number of references isn't important; what matters is whether or not all of the information is backed up with a source. At present, it's not close.
  4. I'm not going to list all references that need more information or better formatting, but I recommend checking out Wikipedia:Citing sources for the {{cite web}} template. All web references need at least a title, publisher, url, and accessdate. If a date of publication or author name is available, this information should be included as well. Reference 32 is an example of a reference without a publisher. I urge you also to take a look at how the access dates are listed for references 36-38. 36 uses "Accessed on", 37 uses "Accessed", and 38 uses "Retrieved on". 36 also uses a formatted date (2006-12-03), while 37 uses a long form (September 5, 2006).
    Access dates have been made consistent. --Sfmammamia (talk) 18:29, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  5. I agree that "rainbow flag" is linked, but it doesn't illustrate anything from the article, as the article doesn not mention rainbow flags.
  6. Image captions are too "succinct" in some places. "Chinatown" is insufficient as a caption, as it says nothing about the image or why it is included. Likewise for "Baker Beach". The caption for Alcatraz is a good example of what a caption should look like: "Alcatraz receives 1.5 million visitors per year" says something about the image, in contrast to "A map from 1888", which doesn't even clarify what the image shows.
    The specific captions mentioned above have been fixed.--Sfmammamia (talk) 19:02, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Not a reply to anything you said, but looking back, why is it important to mention that prospectors had "sourdough bread in tow"? This is not made clear in the article. I understand that you want to avoid unnecessary detail, but giving pieces of information with no indication of why they are relevant to the article makes for a lot of confusion.
Agreed. I deleted the phrase. --Sfmammamia (talk) 19:27, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sourdough bread is an iconic San Francisco artifact. It has been a part of SF since 1849 and probably before. It's use in this sentence is to provide a link to sourdough bread and to document the historical connection between sourdough becoming a SF icon, and the 49er prospectors. I've added a reference tying the bread to the prospectors.--Paul (talk) 00:19, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You do a great job of explaining the link here. It would help readers of the article if a phrase was inserted in that sentence like "which later became an iconic San Francisco artifact. GaryColemanFan (talk) 01:35, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't take my comments personally. I would love to see this keep its Featured Article status. Please note that I waited 8 days to initiate this process after mentioning my concerns to the relevant WikiProjects. I feel, however, that substantial work needs to be done, and I hope that the relevant projects will help get this article back to FA quality. GaryColemanFan (talk) 20:28, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Response "The number of references isn't important; what matters is whether or not all of the information is backed up with a source. At present, it's not close." This isn't what the policy requires. Policy requires that "attribution is required for direct quotes and for material that is challenged or likely to be challenged." For example, do you think these sentences need a citation? "Public transit solely within the city of San Francisco is provided predominantly by the San Francisco Municipal Railway (Muni). The city-owned system operates both a combined light rail/subway system (the Muni Metro) and a bus network that includes trolleybuses, standard diesel motorcoaches and diesel hybrid buses."--Paul (talk) 00:17, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have over 1,000 edits on the San Francisco article. You have none. Unfortunately, I no longer have the time nor the interest to work on this article. The article has not changed substantially since its promotion in September 2006. If you think it needs some work, I think you should work on it.--Paul (talk) 23:22, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Reply I am aware that you have over 1,000 edits on this article. That is the reason that I notified you directly about the Featured Article review. Please note that Featured Article standards have changed substantially since 2006. Unfortunately, this article has not kept up with these changes and does not currently meet the standards. One of my current projects on Wikipedia is to ensure that Featured Articles meet the criteria. In cases like Wayne Gretzky, it is sometimes necessary to initiate a Featured Article review to get the changes made. I am not picking on you personally or on this article, as this is not the first review I have initiated (after giving the relevant projects ample time to start making the required changes), and it will not be the last. I am certainly willing to do some work toward fixing the article, but only if the relevant projects (those with knowledge of the subject matter and the guidelines of their projects) are willing to help. I can certainly understand that you might not have time or interest to work on the article, and I hope you don't take any of my comments to mean that I expect you (or any other specific editor) to help. With that said, the most important matter is improving the article. As this conversation is accomplishing nothing toward that goal, I will no longer engage in such a debate. I am quite willing to offer opinions and/or answer questions about the concerns I have identified, as it is my sincere hope that the outcome is to keep this as a Featured Article. Best wishes, GaryColemanFan (talk) 23:57, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Request Please complete the nomination by following the instructions at the top of WP:FAR to notify significant contributors and relevant WikiProjects, and post the notifications back to the top of this FAR. Thank you. --Regents Park (roll amongst the roses) 20:23, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies. I notified them right away, but I wasn't aware that I had to list them here. I'll get that done right away. GaryColemanFan (talk) 20:28, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Done. GaryColemanFan (talk) 20:35, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments Unfortunately, I concur with GaryColemanFan that this is not up to FA standards, at least as they exist today. As Paul suggested, minor fixes should just be make on the spot, but I think this article needs substantial work. Issues per FA criteria:
    • 1c (sources): There are many unsourced sections. Inline citations are needed to so we at least have a general idea what sources the material is based on.
    • 2a (lead): The lead is quite weak for a broad article of this depth. It does not accurately represent the article per WP:LEAD. Someone familiar with the subject matter needs to work on it.
    • 3 (images): The article is an image farm and, as GCF pointed out, the captions are weak. Someone needs to trim them up, fix the captions, and then visit MOS:IMAGES and get them arranged properly. There are all manner of placement problems. --Laser brain (talk) 04:15, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding the images. I have moved several images from the left margin to the right margin to keep them from disturbing the text layout at the beginning of sections and subsections. However, I would like to point out that WP:FACR does not even mention MOS:IMAGES. It lists only three requirements:

3. Images. It has images and other media where they are appropriate, with succinct captions and acceptable copyright status. Non-free images or media must satisfy the criteria for the inclusion of non-free content and be labeled accordingly.

Thus, any concern about the layout of images is more properly the subject of a TALK page discussion or a few minutes time of judicious editing, not a basis for an FAR.
As for the article being an "image farm," that is a bit of an exaggeration. The editors of this article have deleted scores of vanity images. All of the images left in the article appropriately illustrate accompanying text. However, there are two images added in the last year which might be argued border on excess: the night cityscape panorama, and the satellite image of the San Francisco peninsula.--Paul (talk) 00:19, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's safe to say that Manual of Style compliance is assumed to be part of the Featured Article criteria. GaryColemanFan (talk) 01:35, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Response I've moved pictures around at the beginning of sections. I have also reviewed MOS:IMAGES and don't see anything else that is out of compliance. If editors disagree with this assessment, please point out specific instances (like the very helpful one above about pictures and topic headings).--Paul (talk) 18:10, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The images are vastly improved, thank you. --Laser brain (talk) 19:26, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
While more citations are preferable, it would be quite strange to say that mere descriptions of fact that are unchallenged will need citations, if I may point out the public transportation section as an example. Of course, some images are unneeded, and they will be weeded out momentarily. However, I do have two questions:
  1. First and foremost, can you elaborate on your concerns a bit? It's hard to improve an article, let alone trying to understand abstractions and guess what you are talking about.
  2. Why was this issue not taken up to the talk page first? Perhaps via informal channels this problem would have been solved, and we won't have to go through this process. It might catch people's eyes, but it's still quite rude to the main authors of this article for this to suddenly come up (which may partly explain Paul's response).
Until then, I will try to improve the article to the best of my ability. —Kurykh 05:25, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
About the rainbow flag, I think it's the Castro (which the rainbow flag is representing) that is being emphasized, and not the rainbow flag itself. —Kurykh 05:31, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure how to elaborate any more than I already have. The biggest problem is with the citations. The article is insufficiently referenced, and the citations are not properly formatted. Currently, much of the article appears to be original research. To verify that the information has come from a reliable source, citations are needed. If that could be fixed, the majority of the work would be complete. As for your question about the talk page, you are correct. That would have been a good idea. I wasn't trying to spring this out of nowhere, though, and I notified all of the relevant Wikiprojects (Cities, San Francisco Bay Area, and California) and then waited eight days before starting the review. I will make sure to mention it on the talk page as well next time, though. Thanks for the advice, GaryColemanFan (talk) 05:54, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Response Here's a suggestion on how you can "elaborate" further. WP:FAR states "Nominators typically assist in the process of improvement." If you would go through the article and tag facts that you thing need citing, that would be extremely helpful. As you pointed out, the number of citations does not matter (whether there are many or few for a given section). What matters is that statements of fact that could reasonably be challenged (that is the policy) are correctly cited. If concerned editors would add {{fact}} tags where they have concerns, other editors could fix those problems, or explain why it is not a problem. Thanks.--Paul (talk) 18:26, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Response to response Indeed, I'm sure nominators typically help. Your constant attacks do nothing to make me feel like helping, though. I have tried my best to remain civil. If my offer of help is going to be thrown back in my face, though, I'm much more inclined to let you do it yourself. GaryColemanFan (talk) 22:24, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Response to response to response I'm surprised you regard my note as a personal attack. It certainly wasn't intended that way. On line communication is so difficult some times. I only intended to point out how much better specific concerns and recommendations are, and was hoping for a little help. My apologies for any perceived slight.--Paul (talk) 00:00, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Likewise, I thought I did a pretty good job outlining issues. There are no quick fixes here to delineate. Also, I'm a little annoyed that someone following the established procedure to review an article to see if it still meets featured article criteria is called rude. --Laser brain (talk) 07:13, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I apologize if I inadvertently attacked anyone as rude (my intention was to highlight the perception of the action); however, I thought it was common knowledge that informal processes (talk page discussion) are often initiated before established procedures (this). —Kurykh 19:27, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Given that we need to rework the article a bit is it possible that we fix the article to conform to WP:USCITY guidelines, or is this article an exception because it became a featured article before the guideline was even drawn up? —Kurykh 19:38, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The article already substantially follows the guidelines which can be seen by comparing the two index structures. Given that WP:USCITY states: The order of sections is also completely optional, and sections may be moved around to a different order based on the needs of their city.... While it is just a guideline and there are no requirements to follow it in editing.... I'd say it is not necessary to change the existing structure of the article. Also, WP:USCITY unfortunately "suggests" trivia sections for "Notable natives and residents" as well as "Sister cities" both of which were removed during the FAC process.--Paul (talk) 20:33, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I was a significant contributor to those guidelines but I think that individual city articles should tailor the layout and content according to each city's unique characteristics and sources. --maclean 01:50, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Work needed. I participated in the peer review, but wasn't around when this passed FAC; there is a bit of work needed. See WP:GTL, portals belong in See also. See WP:GTL regarding See also: really needs pruning. All of those links should be worked into the article so See also can be minimized. Citations need work: there are missing publishers and some dates are wikilinked, others not. This is the English Wiki; English doesn't need to be specified in citations. There are also incomplete citations: for example, this has an author and publication date which aren't listed. Some stubby sections (two sentences on bicyling warrant an entire section)? Review of WP:DASH and WP:HYPHEN needed, east to west is an endash: Major east-west thoroughfares ... Informal prose needs review: baking & pastry arts, and hospitality & restaurant management (should that be "and"). WP:WTA, claim: and claims more judges on the state bench than any other institution. Do we doubt that claim? WP:AWW, weasleness, believed by whom? The city is believed to have the highest number of homeless inhabitants ... Another WP:DASH issue, no unspaced emdashes please: ... installations — the Presidio, Treasure Island, and Hunters Point — a legacy ... Incorrect endashes: The municipal budget for fiscal year 2007-2008 ... Uncited assertions of fact: San Francisco is a consolidated city-county, a status it has had since 1856. It is the only such consolidation in California. More uncited assertions: San Francisco's economy has increasingly become tied to that of Silicon Valley to the south, sharing a need for highly educated workers with specialized skills. WP:NBSP attention needed. These matters are all fairly trivial, and the article is in much better shape than many geography articles that come through here; I don't see why it can't be kept after a bit of elbow grease to clean up these items and the others identified by the nominator. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:50, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Re: See also I've trimmed that down to four from twenty-six using the auto wiki browser diff. Everything that was removed is already present in the article in line, as a {{main}} link, or are part of the navigation boxes at the bottom. -Optigan13 (talk) 06:35, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Response I moved the SF portal to See Also (BTW WP:GTL does not mention portal placement). The citation called out for not having an author and publication date has been fixed. References have been added for consolidated city-county status and SF's reliance on the area tech sector and highly skilled labor. Thanks to Sandy for having specific examples that can be fixed.--Paul (talk) 17:59, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I removed two more links from the pagediff for the Archdiocese which was in text under schools and the famous San Franciscans which is in the {{San Francisco}} as a Notable People link. I was looking at possibly removing the two remaining links if possible, either through integration of the links into the text, or to templates, or outright removal of the see also section. Am I correct in thinking that See also sections have fallen out of favor as they can serve as cruft attractors like external links sections, which is why they are optional? -Optigan13 (talk) 06:31, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The deletion of the portals info from WP:GTL was a recent, undiscussed edit; now sorted and restored. See also sections is different in articles under development and in FAs. See also serves as a repository for info that should later be worked into the article; FAs are supposed to be mostly complete, so that info should already be worked into the article. I struck a few, will be back to check more later. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:09, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I spent an hour or so cleaning up some basic MoS issue tonight (much more to do still); I'd rather not type it all up, and hope other editors will look at my edit summaries and complete the citation cleanup still needed.[2] I found WP:MOSNUM, WP:MOSDATE, MOS:CAPS#All caps, missing info on citations, inconsistent date linking and formatting in citations, publishers listed as authors in citations, inconsistent page numbers (note that different cite templates handle page numbers differently, including plurals), % vs. percent should be consistent, WP:HYPHEN errors, etc. The only section I got to read was Economy, where I added two inlines on clarification needed. (Also, we're later told that UCSF is the number two employer; who is number one?) I'll continue reading the article later, but citation work needs to be finished, particularly date formatting and linking. The article looks to be in pretty good shape, although elbow grease is still needed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:42, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "(Also, we're later told that UCSF is the number two employer; who is number one?)" The city & county is the largest employer, which makes UCSF the largest private employer. I've made the change to the text.--Paul (talk) 15:04, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Problem with that logic, UCSF is also a public, not a private, employer. I will work on clarifying this in the text. Most, if not all, of the citation formatting issues have been fixed, I think (I hope). --Sfmammamia (talk) 18:40, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I will continue reading, checking for comprehensiveness and citations, and reviewing MoS issues over the next few days, but this looks to be on track for a Keep without FARC. Can someone ping GaryColeman and Laser brain to get updates from them, so we can stay on track? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:34, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I find that several sections are still completely Original Research. The "Neighborhoods" section, for example, has no sources. Where is the information coming from? There has definitely been some improvement, but the citations just aren't there. I added some "citation needed" tags, but I didn't get through the whole article. I can try to finish later, but I was really surprised at the amount of Original Research. Some sections, like "Climate" are really well done. Others just aren't sourced at all. Don't get me wrong...I think the article is definitely close, but the lack of references really stands out to me. GaryColemanFan (talk) 19:25, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Response Thank you for the {{fact}} tags. They make verifiablitiy concerns concrete and make it much easier to respond. I've started to add a few of the requested references. However, I think some of the requests are a bit overboard. My understanding of the verifiability requirements are that citations are required for quotations and for any material that is challenged or is likely to be challenged.
One example: the following statement was tagged:

Just southwest of Mission Bay is the Potrero Hill neighborhood featuring sweeping views of downtown San Francisco.[citation needed]

What is being questioned here? The fact that Potrero Hill is a neighborhood? That it lies southwest of Mission Bay? Or that it features sweeping views of downtown? All of these "facts" seem to be pretty trivial things and unlikely to be challenged as to their veracity. If the article on Mount Everest said that it's summit afforded sweeping views of the surrounding geography, should that be cited?
Another example:

City Hall rose once again in splendorous Beaux Arts style, and the city celebrated its rebirth at the Panama-Pacific International Exposition in 1915.[citation needed]

What's the issue here? That (the linked) City Hall was rebuilt? That it is in the Beaux Arts style? That the (linked) Panama-Pacific International Exposition was in 1915? Or, that the city hosted the exposition partially to celebrate the quick rebuilding of the city? What is the point of providing wiki-links, if everything that you may learn in the linked article also has to appear in a footnote in the linking article?
I don't think either of my examples need a citation. It's common sense that you get a view from a hill. The city was leveled by an earthquake in 1906; it's also common sense that city leaders and residents wanted to show off the rebuilding eight years later. This is called prose. The Wikipedia verifiability requirement exists to insure that living persons aren't libeled, and to guard against spreading mis-information. It's not there as a requirement that articles need to look like they were written by a blind Martian with a big library. If such were the case, articles would sport a forest of footnotes but there wouldn't be any brilliant prose. Nor could you find anyone to write an article. There should be balance.--Paul (talk) 21:30, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I will go through these later (and may remove some fact tags). I am not one of the article's authors, but I know SF quite well, and didn't see a glaring need for citation when I went through a few days ago; there were not many facts that were surprising or challenging that were uncited (I did see a few). On the other hand, from the examples given above, I can see that a problem is not the facts rather the "adjectives" used (sweeping, splenderous), which introduce a tour-guide, POV quality to the article. I'm likely to remove some adjectives along with some fact tags. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:45, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If you see any places in need of {{fact}} tags, please add them.--Paul (talk) 00:27, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, my concern was the tourist brochure-like adjectives in those cases. GaryColemanFan (talk) 02:06, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Analysis of {{fact}} tags:

  • Agree citation needed, not common knowledge. Silver discoveries, including the Comstock Lode in 1859, further drove rapid population growth.[citation needed]
  • Adjectives are the issue here, and arts scene is not common knowledge. By the turn of the century, San Francisco was a major city known for its flamboyant style, stately hotels, ostentatious mansions on Nob Hill, and a thriving arts scene.[citation needed]
  • Why does this need citation? The UN Charter creating the United Nations was drafted and signed in San Francisco in 1945 and, in 1951, the Treaty of San Francisco officially ended the war with Japan.[citation needed]
    • Then remove it. The consensus seems to be to err on the side of underciting rather than overciting. GaryColemanFan (talk) 01:03, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is somewhat common knowledge, but it also includes some opinion, and shouldn't be hard to source. During the dot-com boom of the late 1990s, startup companies invigorated the economy. Large numbers of entrepreneurs and computer application developers moved into the city, followed by marketing and sales professionals that changed the social landscape as once poorer neighborhoods became gentrified. When the bubble burst in 2001, many of these companies folded and their employees left, although high technology and entrepreneurship continued to be mainstays of the San Francisco economy.[citation needed]
  • Common knowledge, don't think any of this needs to be cited, but wording could be beefed up and cited (aren't building codes in SF some of the strictest in the world?). The San Andreas and Hayward Faults are responsible for much earthquake activity, even though neither passes through the city itself. It was the San Andreas Fault which slipped and caused the earthquakes in 1906 and 1989. Minor earthquakes occur on a regular basis. The threat of major earthquakes plays a large role in the city's infrastructure development. New buildings must meet high structural standards, and older buildings and bridges must be retrofitted to comply with new building codes.[citation needed]
Looking but still not quite there. I've found "Although California's seismic safety practices for building and land use are among the best in the world,..."(Chronicle, 1995), "The San Francisco codebook is more strict than California's code because of quake precautions"(Chronicle, 2002), and "Although some corporations, such as PG&E, have brought their buildings up to the new seismic codes, many have not done the hugely expensive work. It's not required unless they apply for permits to do major renovations or additions, and the new code kicks in."(Chronicle, 1999) This was looking through the sfgate archives using "building code earthquake". If someone else wants to try flipping through the remaining searches or try using something along the lines of "unreinforced masonry buildings" it might work. -Optigan13 (talk) 06:21, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've modified the sentence to what is easily supported -- that San Francisco has repeatedly upgraded its building codes and requires retrofits, but that thousands of buildings still remain vulnerable. --Sfmammamia (talk) 07:17, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hard data needs citation. Bayview-Hunter's Point in the southeast section of the city is one of the poorest neighborhoods and suffers from a high rate of crime, though the area has been the focus of plans for urban renewal. The other southern neighborhoods of the city are ethnically diverse and populated primarily with students and working-class San Franciscans.[citation needed]

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:28, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep without FARC if the one remaining citation tag can be cleared (I believe sources were identified above?). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:47, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep without FARC — Sounds fine to me. The tag has been dealt with, so I would support closing this FAR. GaryColemanFan (talk) 07:14, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_review/San_Francisco,_California/archive1&oldid=1090670900"