Jump to content

Talk:Junipero Serra Boulevard/GA1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA Review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Viriditas (talk · contribs) 04:40, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Images

[edit]
Resolved

Where are the images? Viriditas (talk) 05:32, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Many of the images cataloged by the San Francisco Historical Photograph Collection probably have free equivalents.[1] Viriditas (talk) 00:31, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Also the Bancroft Library [2] has quite a number of "free" historical images.[3] Viriditas (talk) 00:41, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lead

[edit]
Resolved

Route description

[edit]
  • Junipero Serra Boulevard begins at exit 44 (Avalon Drive) of I-280, and travels north along the east side of I-280 as a four-lane divided highway with minimal intersections, just east of the spine of the San Francisco Peninsula that Skyline Boulevard (SR 35) travels atop
    • Being quite familiar with this area, I think I can picture this, and I can see from the map it is accurate. But the last part confuses me—"just east of the spine of the San Francisco Peninsula that Skyline Boulevard (SR 35) travels atop". Maybe I'm dense (and that is entirely possible) but is there an easier way to say this? It's not every day you read that a road "travels atop" the spine of a peninsula. Viriditas (talk) 03:08, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Google Books shows various secondary sources supporting some of the route description. It is best practice to add these whenever possible rather than relying solely on primary sources for descriptions. I will add a few to this section. Viriditas (talk) 03:48, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • If you want to that's fine, but generally maps are not primary sources: Wikipedia_talk:No_original_research/Archive_39#Regarding_maps_being_.22primary_sources.22_according_to_this_policy I suppose you could make the argument that anything from the satellite layer is, but everything else is not. --Rschen7754 03:59, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • I wouldn't say that generally maps are not primary sources, but rather some maps are not, just as we would say that any source can be used as either a primary or secondary. I think what you were trying to say was that Google Maps is not a primary, but as with any other source, it depends on how it it used and it certainly could be used as one. More to the point, is the entire text in the route description section easily sourced to footnote two? For example, take this statement: "At Ocean Avenue, the K Ingleside line of the San Francisco Municipal Railway enters the median..." Can we determine that is true looking at footnote two? Viriditas (talk) 08:14, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • I think that's the only statement that gives me concern; the rest of the details can be verified through the map, though if you look at articles I've written, I generally steer away from details of this type. We can prove that there's a train line that enters the median, but is it the K Ingleside? So there we might need a transit map to supplement. (By the way, if you're wondering, I am not a primary contributor to this article, so some of these issues are catching me by surprise). --Rschen7754 08:33, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
          • I'll look for a secondary source for that statement. Should be easy to find. No need to delete anything just yet, as I just want to bring these things up for discussion. I'm also interested in how the roads and streets projects use maps, so if you can point me to any more information on that subject, I would appreciate it. Viriditas (talk) 08:39, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

History

[edit]
To the south, Santa Clara County opened a section of the planned road past Stanford University on July 11, 1932.

If you are referring to this road (and I think you are) then we could upload some of the best pics from that set, since the user Naystin was kind enough to upload them with a compatible license. Viriditas (talk) 01:04, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Additional images here. Viriditas (talk) 01:08, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
We had one on commons already of the Palo Alto one, so I included it. I got one of the images from the first link and uploaded to commons, and we could upload more, but that's beyond the scope of GA unless we want to include more in the article. --Rschen7754 07:03, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
San Francisco images: [4] Viriditas (talk) 02:05, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Added the linked one. --Rschen7754 07:12, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just so we are on the same page, most of the sources in this section are primary sources. I don't see anything wrong with that, and I think they are used appropriately, however, I just want to take this opportunity to point out yet again on the record for the nth time, that NOR's WP:PRIMARY proscription that we should not "base an entire article on primary sources" is not reflected by actual practice. Except for the proper use of road maps, virtually this entire article is based on primary sources, and is entirely acceptable according to normal editorial practices. I've even seen GA and FA articles that are based almost entirely on primary sources, so NOR's proscription is not true. Viriditas (talk) 08:23, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(outdent) Unless I reboot into Windows, which would take a substantial amount of time for checking one small thing, I do not have the ability to look at the source on the Mac platform. I am aware of who the original writer was, and I'm sure that the source is used appropriately. If you want to look at the map, you are more than welcome to; just verify that the road, in fact, is not in the 1899 one and is in the 1916-ish one. I've never had a reviewer insist on reviewing every single source, at GAN, ACR, or FAC (FAC spotchecks are only 25% of all sources), and doing so would be ridiculous for an article such as California State Route 52 with over 100 articles. GA is supposed to be a lightweight review. Reviewing is supposed to take 14 days maximum per WP:GAN; I'm a bit frustrated that we haven't even entered the "hold" stage yet, and am considering withdrawing and renominating as I'm not sure that you will ever pass the article, or that the review will not last another two weeks; there is no end in sight. Not to add the snide comments regarding maps being "primary sources" when they are not, in fact, primary sources. --Rschen7754 07:04, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize that the review is not going according to your schedule. I have a job and little free time, but I edit when I can, either from my cell or before I go to sleep, sometimes when I wake up. As for this particular map, yes in fact it is a primary source, not a secondary, given its historical provenance. Viriditas (talk) 07:14, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
What else do you plan on checking? --Rschen7754 07:21, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think we are close to done after this. I've checked almost all of the rest of the sources. I think there are one or two left, but I'm not at home at the moment. Viriditas (talk) 07:27, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I won't be checking the SID file; if you wish to, you are welcome to do so. I apologize for my tone, but this insistence on checking every single source is bordering on the ridiculous. I've even seen GANs improperly failed because they used books as sources, which of course the reviewer did not have access to. I've reviewed several GANs, ACRs, and FACs, and only check sources if a) I'm doing a spotcheck for FAC or b) the editor has a known problem with misrepresenting sources. For substantial articles such as CA 52, it's impossible to check every source. At some point, you have to AGF and assume that if a good amount of the sources are good, the rest probably are, too. At the ACR level, I use the popups to look at the reference and determine if such a use of a source is plausible; it saves me a lot of time and still is thorough enough. --Rschen7754 07:33, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think you missed out on a major part of this discussion. I already checked the file last night and had trouble verifying the content. I then asked you to look at it yourself. Seems entirely reasonable to me. Viriditas (talk) 07:37, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
When I get home, I'll finish the review from my desktop and note any issues. It will be a few hours from now. Thanks for your patience. Viriditas (talk) 07:43, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I also think you missed the part of the discussion where I said that the files do not work on a Mac. --Rschen7754 07:45, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I should be able to save it as a viewable image and upload it to Commons. I'll try that when I get home. Viriditas (talk) 07:52, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It won't let me save the entire map as it is too large, so I'll just address the issues here. Viriditas (talk) 11:43, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Between 1899 and 1915, the city of San Francisco built an "automobile boulevard" from the end of the existing Corbett Avenue (now Portola Drive) at Ocean Avenue[3] south past the Ingleside Race Track to the county line, where it continued to School Street in Daly City (then part of Colma).[4] At the north end, it connected with Parkside Boulevard (now Sloat Boulevard) and Dewey Boulevard.[5]
    • First of all, the map in question was published in 1899 but surveyed in 1892. I don't see anything in the source indicating an automobile boulevard was built "between 1899 and 1915" during that time frame in footnote 3. The original editor wrote that the automobile boulevard was built "soon after the 1906 earthquake", but I can't verify that. It's possible that another source in the article supports this statement, and I'm looking for it, however, I expect to be able to verify statements associating a date with the construction of a road. I really don't think I'm asking too much here. If you think about it, it makes no sense that the original editor would write that the road was built after 1906 while sourcing that statement to a map created in 1892 and published in 1899. So, there's obviously a problem here, most likely a misplaced source or two or three. Viriditas (talk) 12:01, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • San Francisco and San Mateo County formed Joint Highway District No. 10 on September 4, 1928 to fund and construct an extension of the boulevard south to Burlingame. An improvement of the existing road north of School Street was completed in 1930; an extension continued the roadway to Edgemar Road (now Eastmoor Avenue) in the early 1930s, and in 1933 it reached El Camino Real (US 101, now SR 82) in South San Francisco.
  • The eventual path of this freeway (which was never built in San Francisco), part of I-280, generally paralleled Serra Boulevard to Crystal Springs Road, and in fact replaced the boulevard south of Avalon Drive. However, south of Crystal Springs Road, a more westerly route along Skyline Boulevard (SR 35) was chosen
    • That entire paragraph is sourced to this map. Statements like "eventual path...never built...in fact replaced...a more westerly route...was chosen" generally require actual secondary sources saying that. It's quite a stretch to make that kind of interpretation from a map that doesn't actually say that. Another red flag for me is the use of "Serra Boulevard" which we already removed from a previous section. I've never seen the road abbreviated anywhere as "Serra Boulevard", so either I'm wrong and there is at least one reliable source that uses that term, or the editor invented it. I'm also guessing that there is a missing source that the editor is relying on that is not in the article. Viriditas (talk) 12:13, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

References

[edit]

This article was written in 2008 when our standards for reliable sources were much weaker than they are today.[6] Although I'm not altogether sure, I believe that this is the root of the current problem and may explain why many sources appear to be missing. This is not to imply that the information is false or that sources cannot be found. It must be remembered that in 2008, many of our articles lacked proper references. Viriditas (talk) 11:56, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Checklist

[edit]
GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
    Copyedits to the lead section completed
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
    Majority of references are primary sources.
    Verified footnote 3 and 4, but don't see how it supports "Soon after the 1906 earthquake, the city of San Francisco built" since the original source cited was published in 1899 (surveyed in 1892).
    History section requires additional (or explicit) sources (see above)
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
    Neutral. Viriditas (talk) 07:49, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:
    Stable. Viriditas (talk) 07:49, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
    There are quite a number of historical and current images of the boulevard that are available, either in free historical collections or on flickr. Viriditas (talk) 07:47, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:
    I'm putting this article on hold in the hopes that the nominator can get in contact with the original primary contributor and solve the sourcing issues. If the nominator would like a second opinion, I would have no objection to another reviewer offering their expertise. As I said above in the references section, I believe we can trace this problem back to 2008 when our sourcing requirements were much looser than they are today. Viriditas (talk) 12:17, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    No action since the article was put on hold on September 29. If I was in San Francisco, I would have attempted to visit a library to find local sources, but since I'm not and nobody can verify the content, I'm failing the article. Please feel free to contact the primary contributor for help with the sources and renominate it again. Viriditas (talk) 09:29, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, you've caught me at a time when my apartment does not have Internet. :( It might be a few days before I can get to this. --Rschen7754 18:21, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. I'll be reviewing this for a few days. Viriditas (talk) 01:57, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Attempting to finish review... Viriditas (talk) 00:51, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Viriditas (talk) 12:17, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Junipero_Serra_Boulevard/GA1&oldid=1248597623"