![]() | California: San Francisco Bay Area Project‑class | |||||||||
|
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)
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)
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"
Per User:BlankVerse's suggestions below:
-- DaveOinSF 16:24, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
March is almost here (at least by Pacific Standard Time). Here are the possiblities:
So, which would you choose?
— Emiellaiendiay 03:45, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
![]() | California: San Francisco Bay Area Project‑class | |||||||||
|
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)
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)
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"
Per User:BlankVerse's suggestions below:
-- DaveOinSF 16:24, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
March is almost here (at least by Pacific Standard Time). Here are the possiblities:
So, which would you choose?
— Emiellaiendiay 03:45, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)