Talk:SF Weekly

California: San Francisco Bay Area Low‑importance

	California portal 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.CaliforniaWikipedia:WikiProject CaliforniaTemplate:WikiProject CaliforniaCalifornia articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	San Francisco Bay Area portal This article is supported by San Francisco Bay Area task force (assessed as Low-importance).

Journalism Low‑importance

	Journalism portal 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.JournalismWikipedia:WikiProject JournalismTemplate:WikiProject JournalismJournalism articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Newspapers Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Newspapers, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Newspapers 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.NewspapersWikipedia:WikiProject NewspapersTemplate:WikiProject NewspapersNewspapers articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Comments from SF weekly

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))[reply]

HQ

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)[reply]

External links modified

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:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100206093723/http://sfist.com/2006/01/18/did_the_sf_weekly_scapegoat_harmon_leon.php to http://sfist.com/2006/01/18/did_the_sf_weekly_scapegoat_harmon_leon.php

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

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.

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