Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/San Francisco, California

San Francisco, California
Co-self-nomination. Since its first failed FA nomination (Discussion here), this article has undergone a massive rewrite and reorganization (Article as it appeared on June 30, 2006). With close to 1,000 edits since the peer review process was started, we have incorporated new ideas and responded to suggestions made by other Wikipedians (Discussion here).

We are aware that there may be concerns about the article's size of 81K. Certainly, we wish to abide by the spirit of Article length, which expresses concern about articles with greater than 32K-50K or 6000-10000 words of "readable prose". By our estimation, our article has 39K of "readable prose" and 6250 words. The Encyclopaedia Brittanica entry on San Francisco contains 6800 words. Also, compare our article to the three Featured Articles on major American cities:


 * {|class="wikitable"

!Wikipedia Article !Total size !"readable prose" !# Words
 * Seattle, Washington
 * 83K
 * 49K
 * 7800
 * Detroit, Michigan
 * 69K
 * 40K
 * 6300
 * San Francisco, California
 * 81K
 * 39K
 * 6250
 * Boston, Massachusetts
 * 59K
 * 37K
 * 5900
 * }
 * 59K
 * 37K
 * 5900
 * }

The relatively high Total size stems from our effort for thorough in-line referencing, which has added very substantially to the overall stored length. We feel than an article on San Francisco, California that fairly and comprehensively takes into account the many aspects of the history, culture, and life of the internationally known city of San Francisco would be difficult to execute in less space. We hope we have prepared an article on San Francisco, California that will gain your support for featured article status.--DaveOinSF & --Paul 05:37, 6 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Strong Support Complete overhaul of the article went beyond my expectations and answered more than satisfactorily my concerns during the first FAC and during peer review. Good job, guys; your efforts have paid off in the form of my support vote (and perhaps those of many others). One minor detail: please expand on the media section whenever possible (I know, after watching this article since the first FAC, that expanding this section is hard). It looks disproportionally small. Otherwise, outstanding, meeting (if not exceeding) criteria, deserving of FA. --physicq210 05:53, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment Wow, 86 references? Seems this article is on way more than solid ground. --physicq210 05:55, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment A lot of those references seem quite uncalled for, especially when more than one note in the same sentence is commenting mere aspects of the same fact statement. Almost all the references seem to be from individual websites rather than, for example, general literature on the history or economy of San Francisco, making it a lot more difficult to get an overview of the nature of the reference material and there is no list summarizing the printed references used. I also don't quite see the point of using more than footnote to support the same fact statement, especially when such a statement is neither particularly obscure nor controversial. Nor is it clear why some sections and paragraphs have about one note per sentence (or more) while others are entirely unreferenced. It appears to be completely arbitrary at times. Some examples of fairly obvious over-referencing:
 * Note 17: used twice in the same section even though it doesn't specify any particular page.
 * Note 27: used three times in the same section with only a few sentences apart.
 * Note 43: used twice in the same sentence.
 * Notes 84, 85, 86: the airport ranking might just as well be considered an observation based on the amount of passanges.
 * Peter Isotalo 11:32, 6 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Response: The San Francisco article was not recently written as a term paper project, it has been on Wikipedia for more than four years, collecting a multitude of unreferenced facts along the way. The referencing task was to find an appropriate source for non-obvious statements. During the first FAC and peer review processes, editors complained often about not having sufficient referencing, so where there is a statement of verifiable fact, we have provided a reference. It is true that not all of the references are to printed materials, but many are to material that is available both printed, and in electronic form. Plus, we were careful about picking authoritive electronic referenences: the overwhelming majority are to news or government sources. Finally, on Wikipedia, electronic references (given that they are authoritive) are better than printed ones, because users can click through and read electronic ones.


 * Note 17 has now been split into two notes with page #s called out... thanks for pointing this out.
 * Note 27 Agree it was overused. Where the source was used both to talk about the existence of microclimates, and to provide evidence in rainfall, I have removed the first use.
 * Note 43 is actually used in two sentences. First to verify the # of crime incidents, and in the following sentence, to rank SF in comparison to other cities. --Paul 13:43, 6 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Response2-There is certainly a method to our madness. Sections where we are relying more heavily on statistical information will necessarily have a higher density of references rather than sections where we do not.  Anytime we quote a number, or say where SF ranks in something, we have to include a source.  Thus, Demographics is full of notes, other areas less so.  One place where you do indeed have a point is in Airports, where #86 also contains the information covered in ref #85 and ref #87. Consider this fixed, with 2 of the 3 references eliminated.--DaveOinSF 14:47, 6 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Response3-I've added a References section, listing non-URL-accessable texts used in preparing the article. I stand by my comments about the relative usefullness of text and electronic refs.--Paul 18:31, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
 * A nice and quick response there. Very satisfying. I am, however, not in agreement about your statement that every single figure or ranking has to be accompanied by a footnote. That statistics are somehow more important to reference in such extreme detail is something that seems rather arbitrary. A fact statement that involves a figure is as important as a description of historical events. But I believe that referencing should be a bit more intuitive and that a minimum of effort should be demanded of those who ask for references. I.e. Wikipedia isn't supposed to both provide facts and in such extreme detail explain how others should go about finding it. I know I certainly don't like reading encyclopedic articles that assume that every single fact can and should be questioned by any person at any time.
 * Since I know my statement don't quite follow the majority opinion on the usage of footnotes, I must point out that this is not a objection, bu merely a comment.
 * Peter Isotalo 15:03, 9 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Strong Support. Meets the FA criteria, well written, has lots of references where needed. — Wackymacs 09:33, 6 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Support Wow that was quick. I just left what I would have assumed would be quite a bit of work to fix on the peer review and it's already done basically. Last thing I forgot to add yesterday was asking if the French featured article has anything this needs but doesn't have in order to be comprehensive. I don't speak or read French, but a google translation of the article didn't show up anything immediate to me except for one thing. Make sure to go through carefully to see if they cover anything else important that's not here. The one thing I saw was a discussion of the number of depictions of the city in media, books, etc. It doesn't need to be a long paragraph, but given the high position of San Francisco in many people's minds, I think it would be justified to cover that. To make room replace a paragraph or so from the history section which is probably too long. Otherwise very good overall. - Taxman Talk 12:42, 6 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Response. Thanks for the comments on speed. Next, sorry, but I disagree about including a paragraph about "depictions of the city in media, books, etc."  One of the most tedious tasks in fixing the article was removing the trivia.  Take a look at the mis-named Culture of San Francisco, California article (which was spun off) and you will see that nine books, sixty-six films, and twenty-eight television series are mentioned. Mention of The Maltese Falcon, Vertigo and Dirty Harry might be appropriate, but (to mangle a few metaphors) it opens Pandoras box to a slippery slope.  Once you start, there is no end.  The mention in popular culture material was specifically removed from the article, but it is there in the daughter article for those who are interested. The other editor who has been working on the article is fluent in French; I'm sure he will review the French article and comment here on any issues of comprehensiveness. --Paul 13:43, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Indeed you should minimize trivia, but I'm not saying you need to list lots of pop culture examples. But I do believe that the city is prominent enough and is referred to enough to support saying that it is mentioned often and just how much it is. And don't just report pop culture, cover all types of media and literature. It's part of the reputation of the city and from that perspective I believe it has a high enough priority to warrant inclusion. I'm also open to the possibility it's not, in any article like this there is a lot you have to leave out and you are certainly approaching it the right way to make that decision. Just offering a different idea. - Taxman Talk 22:09, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I've made an effort to accommodate your suggestion without turning it into a major point of emphasis in the article, or inviting other contributors to pile on with more pop culture references. In the Economy section, in the paragraph discussing tourism, I've added some prose:
 * Tourism is the backbone of the San Francisco economy. Its frequent portayal in music, film, and popular culture has made the city and its landmarks recognizable worldwide. It is the city where Tony Bennett left his heart, the Birdman of Alcatraz spent many of his final years, and where Rice-a-Roni is said to be the favorite treat. The city attracts the...
 * While I'm certain Paul will make suggestions as to what specific examples might be most appropriate, I think this is a reasonable way to respond to your suggestion, without it becoming too unwieldy. Let us know what you think.--DaveOinSF 23:20, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I do share your worry it will be an invite for a trivia explosion, but I think that's a good way to cover it. - Taxman Talk 20:19, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Response2 We aim to please... I'm not sure I agree that a "San Francisco in Popular Culture" or whatnot section is really desirable.  To me that fits in the same category as "Famous San Franciscans"...essentially trivia.  If we include "Maltese Falcon", do we include "Mrs. Doubtfire" too?  If there's some real-world impact of the film, book, or TV show, maybe there would be an exception.  Off the top of my head, "Birdman of Alcatraz" might be notable because it and other films set on ALcatraz have really helped drive the mystique of the island and promoted tourism there.  If I can find some references to that end, I will considering adding it into the tourism para in economy.
 * As for the French article, I read it and it contains a lot of information and detail that we actually chose to delete. For example, in history, it mentions that Sir Francis Drake did not make it to San Francisco Bay.   That was once in the english-language article, but our rationale was that explorers who were nearby but didn't actually make it to SF weren't necessary in this article.  They also have some prose that are essentially lists:  "There are also other neighborhoods where the gay and lesbian community is particulary present, notably Noe Valley, Diamond Heights, Bernal Heights, Potrero Hill, Haight-Ashbury, Hayes Valley, Twin Peaks and SOMA.", something we've generally sought to avoid.  It also repeats as fact the popular misconception that Levi Strauss supplied denim bluejeans to the prospectors of the gold rush (they were overalls...he didn't invent jeans until 20+ years later).--DaveOinSF 14:31, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
 * That's more or less what I was looking for, that you had analyzed it and prioritized the material that was covered there to see if any of it was important enough to cover here. - Taxman Talk 22:09, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Cool. Any chance you can change that "Comment" into a "Support"? :)--DaveOinSF 22:33, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
 * It really is a pretty impressive article, so yes. - Taxman Talk 20:19, 7 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Conditional Support - Please sight some information on how the city votes and has voted in federal elections. Judgesurreal777 18:39, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Response: I've added a phrase in the Culture and contemporary life section that links to a short article containing a table of the San Francisco County U.S. Presidential election results since 1960. If you have time to provide a reference for that article & table, it would be appreciated.--Paul 19:27, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Response2: I don't think a table is necessary. The article already contained the statement "Following the social upheavals of the 1960s, San Francisco became one of the hypocenters of liberal activism, with Democrats, Greens, and progressives dominating city politics." in Culture and contemporary life.  To this has now been appended  "Indeed, San Francisco has not given the Republican candidate for president greater than 20% of the vote since 1988."--DaveOinSF 19:30, 6 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Support Meets all criteria. Huge amount of work has been done on this article over the past month or so. I've been through the article several times now and all of my concerns and comments from the previous FA nomination and from the peer review were speedily addressed. This article is of better quality than a few of the other featured city articles that I have compared it with and in my opinion is more than worthy of FA status. --Nebular110 23:18, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong Support An exceptionaly good article. Tobyk777 05:38, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment. May be Jack London's quote on 1906 earthquake would look better in the text rather than in the image description. --Brand спойт 09:09, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Response. I think this is creative license that we should be allowed to take.   As a caption, it illustrates the photo in a way that is different than simply a description.  I'd like to hear what other people feel about this.  Do you have any other comments to make about the article?--DaveOinSF 14:22, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I thought it was a great idea using the quote as the caption for the picture. It is such a striking quote that I think it deserves to be isolated from the main text where it could be overlooked quite easily. --Nebular110 16:30, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Support. --Brand спойт 20:11, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Brandmeister, just to keep things tidy, can you edit your Comment to Comment /Support?--Paul 20:21, 8 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Strong Support - I don't see anything in here that I don't like. This goes above and beyond the FA standards. --Daniel Olsen 01:38, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong Support - Stunningly beautiful article. PDXblazers 03:23, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Support Well writen and meets the FA criters. KYMYK 12:09, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Support, an obvious quality article. But if we end up with three featured articles for west coast cities (San Jose, Seattle, SF), we'll need more from the rest of the country ;). NoSeptember  14:35, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment The East Coast? Screw them. We are "liberal" (both ways) in improving our articles. :P --physicq210 23:23, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Support, per above. SergeantBolt 23:06, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong support. obviously. :) --Pedro 23:09, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Support - The article looks amazing + andrew Talk 06:00, 10 September 2006 (UTC)