# Talk:San Marco (Jacksonville)

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of San Marco (Jacksonville)'s orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "city-data.com":
From Springfield (Jacksonville): [1]
From Southbank (Jacksonville): Southbank neighborhood in Jacksonville, Florida (FL), 32207, subdivision profile - real estate, apartments, condos, homes, community, population, jobs, income, ...
From Brooklyn (Jacksonville): Brooklyn neighborhood in Jacksonville, Florida (FL), 32202, 32204 subdivision profile - real estate, apartments, condos, homes, community, population, jobs, income, ...
From LaVilla: LaVilla neighborhood in Jacksonville, Florida (FL), 32202 subdivision profile - real estate, apartments, condos, homes, community, population, jobs, income, ...

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 13:33, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:San Marco (Jacksonville)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Quadell (talk · contribs) 19:25, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
Nominator: Cuchullain
This article is good shape. I have some questions and suggestions below. 

In my opinion, the lead would be improved with an additional sentence in the first paragraph giving some of the information in the "Features" section. (According to WP:MOSLEAD, a lead should summarize all important sections of the article.)
The caption on the first image should really be "Lion statues in San Marco Square". It would truly be notable if there were actual lions there, and we don't want the low-resolution photo to confuse the gullible. :)
Should "Downtown" be capitalized? I honestly don't know. The Brooklyn (Jacksonville) article capitalizes it, but Southbank (Jacksonville) and LaVilla do not.
Thanks for looking into it. Good point about Riverside and Avondale.
Overlinking: St. Nicholas (Jacksonville) (really just a rd to Neighborhoods of Jacksonville) is linked twice in adjacent sections, so only the first link is needed. Piazza San Marco is linked twice, but only the first is necessary (and really, you might decide the same facts are presented in both sections and that some of it is redundant, that's up to you). Fountain is also linked twice, but I don't think it needs to be linked even once; it's a common word that your readers should be quite familiar with. All the other doubly-linked terms are far enough apart that I think it's fine to link a second time.
Do any of your sources have demographic information about San Marco?
Too bad. We can't go further than the sources. Thanks for checking.
I would suggest "Geography" would be a better section title than "Description", and would better match the featured articles we have on towns and neighborhoods. Also, do you have any information on the elevation? That would be useful here.
Great. Too bad about elevation, but thanks for checking.
In "Early history", when you say "The southern bank of the St. Johns River was populated continuously long before what is now Downtown Jacksonville", I think you mean "by Europeans", right? If so, you should be explicit.
Related: Do you have any information about the non-European prehistory of San Marco? The Jacksonville article discusses the Mocama and map of their Saturiwa cheifdom, but I can't tell if South Jacksonville was included or not.
Again, thanks for checking.
I think you mean "families connected to each other by marriage". If so, that would be a clearer wording.
In my opinion, the "San Marco Square" section should be removed. Material regarding the history of the square could be moved into "Annexation and later history", while information about features of the square could be moved into "Features". But this is just my suggestion; it is not required for GA status.
"There are two more in the Southbank" should be followed by a colon, not a comma.
Some of your references end in a period (e.g. "Wood, p. 250–251.") and others don't (e.g. "Ward, pp. 226–237"). It's best to be consistent. Also, be careful to use p for single pages and pp for page spans.
GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
It is reasonably well written.
a (prose, no copyvios, spelling and grammar):  b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): 
All issues have been resolved.
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (reference section):  b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR): 
All issues have been resolved.
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects):  b (focused): 
Available RSes do not allow for much expansion beyond what it already included.
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias: 

It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.: 

It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales):  b (appropriate use with suitable captions): 

Overall:
Pass/Fail: 
This fulfills all the requirements of a GA, and I'm happy to promote it.
Thank you for taking the time to review the article, Quadell. I believe I've fixed most of the issues that I can: I've added a sentence summarizing "features" to the lead, fixed the image caption, changed the "Geography" header, removed the overlinking and instance of redundancy, changed the wording on the "families connected...", and fixed the reference formatting.
On the capitalization of "Downtown", I'm not sure either. I usually capitalize it when it's referring to a specific downtown, as in "Downtown Jacksonville", as it's a proper noun. FWIW, Downtown Jacksonville is capitalized in Riverside and Avondale, which is a GA.
On demographics, unfortunately I'm not aware of any sources that contain that for San Marco. The information can be found looking at the census tracts, but those don't totally match up to what's considered "San Marco" in the sources. As such, I'm wary of skirting OR were it to be included at that point. Similarly, I don't know of any sources for the elevation. I hope relevant sources will appear in the future.
As for previous habitation, while there may have been indigenous settlement in this area at some point in the distant past, my understanding is that by the historical period no one had lived in this particular area for hundreds of years at least. The Mocama, including the Saturiwa chiefdom, lived further east and along the coast. The Spanish didn't have any interest in it either in the early colonial period. So far as I know the British ferry was the first long-term settlement of any kind in the space in question; after that point there was both a white and Indian presence (as well as African) on either side of the river. I've rearranged the wording somewhat to hopefully make that a little clearer.
If it's cool, I'd like to keep the "San Marco Square" section. I just think it's easier to arrange the information on its history and description. I added a similar section to the Riverside and Avondale article.
Thanks again, and please let me know if there's anything else.--Cúchullain t/c 19:54, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
Well done, everything fixable is fixed, and all criteria are met. Congratulations. – Quadell (talk) 21:47, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

S433670, please stop inserting the material on Peterbrooke here. Your additions give undue weight to one neighborhood business, and additionally, the material isn't properly sourced (Peterbrooke's website and Trip Advisor are not acceptable sources). If you think Peterbrooke deserves an article you can continue to work on one in the draft space. Thanks,--Cúchullain t/c 13:04, 3 April 2019 (UTC)