Talk:Chinatown, San Francisco

message: where are your sources for san fran being the 3rd largest chinatown? many sources contradict your claim for new york having the largest chinatown in north america. http://search.yahoo.com/search?p=largest+chinatown&fr=FP-tab-web-t&toggle=1&cop=&ei=UTF-8
new york is nowhere in sight —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chinoiserie (talk • contribs) 14:59, 19 February 2006
A web search isn't the most scientific of methods, but here goes:
* 
* 
* 
* 
* 
If you have been to both original SF and Manhatten Chinatowns, the physical size difference is not hard to see. The Manhatten one is MANY times larger in physical space - it's 2 square miles. As a comparision, if you took the northeast corner of SF, bounded by
California Street at the south and Laguna street on the west is approximately 2 square miles. It's an area that encompasses original SF Chinatown, North Beach, Russian Hill, Fisherman's Wharf, Nob Hill, Embarcadero. eg. It's big. For populations, Census data is not subjective. SF Bay Area and California has much more Asian (and Chinese) population but it's much more dispersed outside of the Grant Street area Chinatown. Dyl 12:10, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I just did a quick web search - estimated 400,000 Chinese in Toronto, 100,000 Chinese in "original" Chinatown. Yes, with these numbers your claim might be true. If you update the various Chinatown articles, you won't get any argument from me. It depends on what the real population counts are for Toronto, Flushing and Manhatten. At least for the NYC locales, these numbers are difficult to get due to low participation in the US census (language barrier, illegal immigration). My previous fervor was due to the obvious B.S. that SF Chinatown is the largest. Heck, even the Chinese section of SF Richmond district is much larger. Dyl 13:49, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: 3rd Largest

message: The person using IP address 67.115.155.107 has spent a lot of effort editing the Chinatown articles re-claiming that the Chinatowns of SF and Vancouver are larger than that of Manhattan (and ignoring Flushing,NYC ; the LA Chinatowns, Toronto, etc..). This person only lists a tourist website and a travel guide book as his/her proof. Not the most reliable of sources. 
1. Here's something more reliable and verifiable. Use the official 2000 US Census website, available here  to get the Asian populations within the Chinatown zipcodes.
SF Zipcode	Asians residents	Comment
94108     	7904            	traditional center of SF Chinatown
94103     	5456            	adjacent to the South
94109     	15678           	adjacent to the West
94104     	238             	adjacent to the East
94105     	135             	adjacent to the East
94133     	14829           	adjacent to the North
NYC Zipcode	Asians residents	comment
10013      	11489           	traditional center of Manhattan Chinatown
10012      	4752            	adjacent to the North
10014      	1666            	adjacent to the North-East
10002      	41798           	adjacent to the East
10007      	375             	adjacent to the South
10038      	4948            	adjacent to the South East
Add up the numbers - you get SF Chinatown with an Asian population of 44,240 and Manhattan Chinatown with an Asian population of 65028. It's been claimed that since 2001, Manhattan Chinatown has shrunk for various reasons. That might be so, but until some 
reliable numbers show up (like a Census) those claims are not verifiable.  Unfortunately, that Census website doesn't have 2006 numbers for any of these zipcodes. 
2.  For the area calculations, this person uses the out-dated traditional boundaries for Manhattan Chinatown while at the same time uses modern day boundaries for the other cities.
3. The claim that there are 180,000 Chinese in SF Chinatown is ridiculous. SF in total population is ~760,000. If Asians are 30% of that number, that would make SF Chinatown's Chinese population many times larger than that of Sunset and Richmond (both of which are much larger physically). Again ridiculous. 
4. I'm not making the claim that Manhattan Chinatown is the largest in North America, as I haven't done the research. But I do believe that SF Chinatown is not the largest anymore. 
Dyl (talk) 19:49, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dis-information from 67.115.155.107 

message: Asking  for a discussion on returning the mention of Tong violence in the history section. The following sentences were deleted without a how-do-you-do, no talk page, no citation tag, no NPOV, nothing.
"Not unlike much of San Francisco, a period of criminality ensued in some tongs on the produce of smuggling, gambling and prostitution, and by the early 1880s, the white population had adopted the term Tong war to describe periods violence in Chinatown, the San Francisco Police Department had established its so-called Chinatown Squad. 
I believe this information, however cliched, represents among the most well-known facts about Chinatown. I suggest they be restored. Hank chapot 01:06, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Tong war period

message: What about a section about the 1980's & potential encroachment of downtown office buildings that resulted in lower heights & the "Chinatown Area Plan"? 208.121.64.37 21:08, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  1980's Chinatown Plan & Downtown Development 

message: Golden Dragon closed in 2007 and has reopened as the Imperial Palace.
Kschang77 (talk) 23:02, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Someone fix up the Golden Dragon reference please... 

message: There's this huge bruhaha about how tall the building should be, or how short, or how each side is spinning the numbers to scare the public...
Kschang77 (talk) 23:05, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I think we're cool with that. —BoL 01:20, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Any one want to mention the fight over City College Chinatown Branch? 

message: "Note to editors: The majority of this work was copied from another website by a previous contributor. Changes and corrections will be made to reflect as accurate as possible the information pertaining to the subject. Citation of credit will be included, wherever, and whenever possible. Where no citing of sources are available, please assume the work to be the sole property of the given website, whose link can be found at the end of each paragraph."
:I have moved your comment here from the article page. Please use discussion pages to discuss articles with other editors. It Is Me Here (talk) 18:57, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  References 

message: Conpac4- I think you might have a valid argument there. I did notice more walking space between people on the streets of New York and Toronto when compared to the shoulder-to-shoulder traffic of San Francisco C-Town. It's laughable that New York yahoos like DYL try to make a convincing case with unproportionally, skewed data, and when you try to contradict them, they just cover their ears in denial and yell out "I can't hear you! You're not here, blah, blah, blah." Sheesh....  —Preceding unsigned comment added by DreamShips221 (talk • contribs) 20:42, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Re: Dis-Information by DYL 

message: Dyl- I hate to rain on your parade, but NY Chinatown is NOT even close 2 square miles as you've suggested. Based on my research, and from what I was able to cover by foot(east of the Bowery and well into the lower e. side), its actual size is more or less 1/2 mile at its widest, and likewise in length. For it to be 2 sq. mi. would mean it would have to cover almost the entire lower east side close to the east river, while reaching as far north as E. 23rd to the doorsteps of the Metro Life Bldg.! Since the area covered is less than a perfect square of 1/2 miles on each side, this puts its actual size at just under 1/2 sq. mi.(somewhere between .35 and .4 sq. mi. based on my estimation). To better substantiate my findings, I had a piece of tracing paper cut into a perfect square simulating 1 sq. mi.(each side representing 1 mi. on the map's scale). Overlaying it over the map showed that it had dwarfed the Chinatown area slightly more than twice. I don't know where people come up with the "2 square miles" figure which also I've spotted on some NY Chinatown websites. It could be that they're mathematically challenged and added up all four sides when they should've multiplied 2 sides! As a visual frame of reference, take a look at Central Park on a map. At roughly 1.4 sq. mi., this colossus of an urban oasis can fit about 4 Chinatowns within its bounds. Also, concerning the disapproval of others modifying Wikipedia's text to reflect their own perception of things....Isn't that supposed to be the purpose in the first place? Doesn't the original text also reflect the perceptions of the peron(s) who wrote it?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by SlopChop (talk • contribs) 21:29, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dyl- NY Chinatown Is NOT 2 Square Miles! 

message: Is there any opinion out there on which of the two big Chinatowns -- SF or Manhattan -- are more authentically Chinese?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by IanBromley (talk • contribs) 20:40, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Which big Chinatown is more authentic?  

message: Here are this year's top-10 rankings of the World's Best Chinatowns, as presented anually by Asia Ville, a UK-based publication. Some of the criteria upon which the Chinatowns were rated inlude: Cleanliness, family friendly atmosphere, choice of eating/shopping venues, and accessibility by mass transit. San Francisco's Chinatown took 1st place for the 3rd time in 4 years, reclaiming the top spot from last year's winner, Vancouver. The list is as follow:
1. San Francisco, USA
2. Vancouver, CANADA
3. London, UK
4. Yokohama, JAPAN
5. Toronto, CANADA
6. Singapore, SINGAPORE
7. New York, USA
8. Paris, FRANCE
9. Sydney, AUSTRALIA
10. Bangkok, THAILAND  —Preceding unsigned comment added by HobLub (talk • contribs) 18:23, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  World's Best Chinatowns List 

message: Any opinions out there on which is the actual largest Chinatown around??? My money is on San Francisco. Exaggerated 2 square miles aside, both SF and NY Chinatowns are nearly identical in size(roughly a little over 1/2 mile by 1/2 mile). The area within Manhattan's Chinatown, however, includes synogogues, Jewish, and non-Chinese Asian businesses and residents. If you were to throw out the non-Chinese factor, San Francisco's Chinatown clearly comes out on top as the larger one.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by HobLub (talk • contribs) 20:50, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Actual largest Chinatown??? 

message: Dyl, I think there might be a misconception of Chinatown's influence on your part when compared to the Richmond and Sunset Districts. There are more Chinese residents in these areas than on Grant Avenue, which is what I presume you meant, but less than all of Chinatown even with both these outer neighborhoods combined. In case you're not aware, Chinatown includes some parts of the Financial district an Nob Hill, running from Montgomery all the way up to Taylor- that's where most of the Chinatown's population lives due to insubstantial housing and overcrowdeness in the older parts. Some of the sponsors listed on the back of my grandfather's yearbooks for St. Mary's Chinese School from the 1940s include many businesses located in places like Mason St., which has always been, and still is a part of Chinatown. Chinatown's influence actually once reached as far south as Sutter St., but has since been augmented by post-WWII influxes into Russian Hill, North Beach, and Telegraph Hill to the north. It is undoubtedly the most densely populated part of the city. Trip Advisor reviews even wrote that if the rest of San Francisco were as densely populated as Chinatown, the city's population would be 9 million instead of 900,000, and I think there is some truth to that.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by InspectorDetector (talk • contribs) 21:53, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  DYL, Chinatown vs. Richmnond/Sunset Population 

message: Dyl- I don't know how the heck you came up with your calculations for 2 square miles, but if I didn't know any better I'd say you were spreading the kind of propaganda that you are accusing others of. It's not 2 square miles, 1, not even half that. I have walked the entire length of both Chinatowns, and know that for a sure fact. San Francisco blocks are also more than twice as long as Manhattan's; 5 1/4 SF blocks=1/2mile, 12 1/2 Manhattan blocks=1/2 mile. Claiming that Manhattan's Chinatown encompasses all of old Chinatown, Russian Hill, North Beach Fisherman's Wharf, etc., is a bunch of baloney. For it to be that big, 2 square miles that is, it would mean that it would have to encompass most, if not all of the lower eastside, into the east river and touching ground in brooklyn to the east, reaching as far north into east village and overlapping Tomkins square in the north. I DON'T THINK SO!!! Unlike SF Chinatown, NYC's also surrounds a lot of non-chinese areas. If you were to designate the Chinese areas in blue, and rub out the non-chinese areas, SF Chinatown would show up on the map with more blue. You also presented an unfair comparison of larger NY zip codes to much smaller SF ones in your argument. Not only that, but one of the SF codes given appear to be incorrect. Looks like you were using Google's bug-ridden zip finder. I guess that next you're going to tell us that the Empire State Building is actually the tallest building in the world due to an invisible tower installed to commemorate the Yankees winning 50 World Series in a row.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by VirtDave (talk • contribs) 21:29, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  BEWARE!!! DYL SPREADING PROPAGANDA !!! 

message: OK, look, it's time you stopped behaving like the First Qin Emperor, writing your own version of history by wiping out anything previous, and you should read WP:SOAP and stop using inflammatory language in promoting the cause of NYC's six Chinatowns being larger than San Francisco's SOLE Chinatown:  Your yourself have provided the answer in one of your edit comments:
:Article notes 100K TOTAL residents in FIVE zip codes AROUND SF Ctown; 80-90K CHINESE residents in Manhattan CTown ALONE.
Yes, indeed - because Manhattan's Chinatown and Flushing's Chinatown are not the same Chinatown.  Part of the problem here is that you're interpreting "Chinatown" to mean the total Chinese population of a city/region, part of the problem is also that you're transposing population figures and multiple Chinatowns in a region vs those in one single city.  A Chinatown is a geographic area and actual population figures are not relevant; and there's a difference between the population of Manhattan's Chinatown and the Chinese population of all of Manhattan.  As noted in the previous section, the physical Chinatown in San Francisco is much larger than Manhattan's and, unlike for example Flushing's, is entirely Chinese in flavour and not intermixed with other cultural/commercial elements.  A big problem in Wikipedia's Chinatown coverage is the confusion of population figures and new Chinese commercial districts with the term "Chinatown" which has a specific meaning in North American history/culture.  Also, your interpretation of NYC's figures incorporates figures from outside of NYC, specifically New Jersey which is in another state.  And you can't just willy-nilly delete cited information like the material from the Brittanica; it may be out of date re population figures, but it's an old nostrum that San Francisco's Chinatown is or was the largest.  Rather than wiping out all mention of it and supplanting the updated population figures for New York as if that's all that matters, the better edits would be to provde the date/year when NYC's Chinese population surpassed that of San Francisco, and when the NYC metropolitan area's population surpassed that of the Bay Area.  I should not also that while the cities of the Bay Area have not been amalgamated as is the case with New York City's boroughs, there is an equivalence between San Francisco/Manhattan and Oakland/Queens.  There is a BIG DIFFERENCE between the concept of a metro area and/or city with the largest Chinese population, and the concept of a physical/historical ChinaTOWN.  Instead of ranting about "propaganda" and so on I suggest you back off, realize that San Francisco has a historic importance as for-a-long-time-the-largest and try and edit/amend accordingly.  Wiping out history to advance your own cause is not proper history, nor is it encyclopedic.  In fact, it's propaganda.....Skookum1 (talk) 16:15, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Your assumption that NYC Chinatown is larger using unreliable sources, such as Google maps is a joke. These are basically based on contribution from Google Map users to enter whatever coordinates they'd like to describe a destination's area. If anyone wanted to, they could with ease increase Google's Manhattan Chinatown area to cover all of the United States shaded in pink. Furthermore, your pointing to the US Census Bureau data on NY Chinatown's population says nothing about its population. Matter of fact, Manhattan's population shrank from 34,554 in 2000 to 28,681 in 2012 according to the US Census Bureau as reported by the New York Daily News, the Metro, and other media news organizations. Accroding to these reports, Manhattan Chinatown's population had actually been surpassed by Brooklyn's Sunset Park as largest in NYC with a pop. of 33,526. Here's a link to the story- []  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.102.74.7 (talk) 20:33, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: There's a big difference between the total population of Chinatown, and the Chinese population itself. You gave no credible source from the Census bureau indicating Manhattan's population as 107,609. Furthermore, the US census bureau lists the total population of all of the zip codes overlapping the area as being around 40,000 or so. Your edits smell of Thmc1. It's no wonder that one of the supervising editors have already initiated another sockpuppet investigation even before I got around to considering one.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.102.74.7 (talk) 17:27, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

text: I should also add that you are not only citing the same kinds of unreliable sources as Thmc1, but the exact one. As a matter of fact. It appears that you pulled the 107,609 figure off of unreliable revolvy.com or wow.com. These are the same sites that once incorrectly and cruelly stated "Mama" Cass Elliot(Mamas and the Papas) as dying by choking on a chicken sandwich, when in fact it was cardiac arrest. These articles that you referred to lists Wikipedia as its main source, to no one's surprise. The citation for the 107,609 pop. count in their articles referred to the Chinatown fact sheet on the explorechinatown.com website, a very biased, pro-NY Chinatown organization that Thmc1 once actually quoted. When I went there, I noticed that the "fact sheet" hadn't been updated in years with the same old ridiculous figure of 150,000. Looks as though the 107,609  number was fabricated and left on a previous Wiki edit which revolvy and wow later picked up on. When I contacted explorechinatown.com and asked for a proper source to their unreliable figures, they just told me to get lost and never answered anymore of my e-mails. Their figures are a far cry from the 2011 count of 28,000+ taken by the census bureau as reported by the New York Daily News and other news organizations. The latter is also more in line with those of the NY Chinese Chamber of Commerce, as well as various homeless advocate organizations.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.102.74.7 (talk) 18:28, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: [[User:Thmc1]] - calm down!!

message: Regarding the new section on the Highbinder Tong Wars, I think it needs to be reduced reduced substantially. Comments like "The reign of terror symbolizing the darkest period in Chinatown's history had finally come to an end" don't quite match the encyclopedic tone we should be striving for. Maybe the material could be split to another article? Is there more than one source? If not, then let's just trim the drama.   Will Beback  talk   13:25, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Hello Will.  I made changes. I think it possible to maintain some drama in encyclopedic tones. Please correct any mistakes if you see some. Lam Kin Keung (talk) 02:54, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Highbinder Tong Wars 

message: Why is the Mandarin pinyin only included in the lede; San Francisco is historically Cantonese-based, especially before modern immigration.  This is not a Chinese city, but an American one, and not having any official Chinese-Mandarin name as Chinese cities would, so shouldn't the predominant historical version of Chinese be represented if any is?  Also using pinyin without IPA is questionable, given the usual pronunciation-guide standards of any wiki lede.Skookum1 (talk) 18:26, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Why Mandarin and not Cantonese in the lede?

message: If you look at lede it *DOES* have Jhutping / Cantonese pronunciation. Also, Cantonese and Chinese use the same writing system. -- Kschang77 (talk) 20:37, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Actually, they are in there

message: Folks, being currently IN Chinatown, here's explanation of what is the difference between Cantonese/ Taishanese. 
Merely different pronunciation. Really. 
Taishan (more accurately "Toi-san") is a "county" within Guanzhou (i.e. Canton) 
So Taishanese is as different from regular Cantonese as "Southern English" or "Texas Accent" is different from "American English". 
--Kschang77 (talk) 20:43, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Confusion of Cantonese / Taishanese 

message: I am reading up on this because it is tangential to something else I am researching (and will probably link to this article as part of that). Meanwhile I did a bit of a driveby copy-edit, nothing that should be controversial I don't think. But this sentence confuses me so can someone that knows more than my absolutely nothing please fix it up?
"In response to the violence, the Chinese Consolidated Benevolent Association, also known as the Chinese Six Companies, which evolved out of the labor recruiting organizations for different areas of Guangdong, was created as a means of providing the community with a unified voice."
how can it have been created if it evolved out of something else? I think someone mis-wrote. But anyway, seems to be an active page, hopefully someone will know. Elinruby (talk) 07:38, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  request for clarification Suggestion 

message: "Part of their efforts in doing so was to plan and rebuild the neighborhood as a western friendly tourist attraction. The rebuilt area that is seen today, resembles such plans."
I took this out because I could not tell if "they" were the developers or the Chinese who returned to the neighborhood. Someone who knows the subject matter please address. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Elinruby (talk • contribs) 
:Yeah, I agree the text as written is not clear. Here's what the sources say:
:*Library of Congress: "Chinese leaders convinced municipal leaders and the neighborhoods white landlords that the 'New' Chinatown should be rebuilt in a distinctive Oriental style that would attract more tourism and business, thereby boosting San Francisco's economy as whole. The results were the familiar curved eaves, colorful street lanterns, recessed balconies, and gilded facades that we today instantly associate with Chinatown."
:*PBS: "...a wealthy businessman named Look Tin Eli developed a plan to rebuild Chinatown to its original location. He obtained a loan from Hong Kong and designed the new Chinatown to be more emphatically 'Oriental' to draw tourists. The old Italianate buildings were replaced by Edwardian architecture embellished with theatrical chinoiserie. Chinatown, like the phoenix, rose from the ashes with a new facade, dreamed up by an American-born Chinese man, built by white architects, looking like a stage-set China that does not exist."
:*NPR: "But the buildings constructed were different from the ones destroyed, thanks to a businessman named Look Tin Eli. He convinced other merchants to follow his plan and hire American architects to redesign his building to look like China, in order to attract tourists. In many instances, the architects designed American-style buildings, but placed colorful pagodas with curled eaves and dragon motifs on top... 'And so you have this effect of the trademark of Chinatown today where it's very much an Oriental Disneyland,' (historian Judy) Yung says. "
:*Chinese Historical Society of America: "1906: ...Look Tin Eli and other Chinese merchants plan for a rebuilt Chinatown that will be welcomed by the city as an attractive draw for tourism. Leading San Francisco architects are commissioned to fulfill the vision this marketing maven articulates for a new 'Oriental' city built of 'veritable fairy palaces.' Chinatown businesses and institutions publicize their building plans to help realize the recreated Chinatown. Some choose to participate in the newly created 'Oriental' style, while others commission styles similar to those found elsewhere in San Francisco, using architecture to make a statement about their American identity."
:*San Francisco Planning Department: "Chinatown is known for its bustling sidewalks, housing affordability, sustainable character, and colorful and ornate architecture. Residents strategically and quickly rebuilt in an oriental style after the 1906 earthquake and fire to draw tourists and thwart a proposal to move the leveled neighborhood elsewhere."
:So it looks like "they" were Chinese businessmen who hired primarily white architects to create a fantasy architecture which would appear "Oriental" to tourists. Binksternet (talk) 17:06, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  unclear text Suggestion 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Chinatown, San Francisco. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110805012942/http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/examiner/archive/1999/03/09/NEWS12705.dtl to http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/examiner/archive/1999/03/09/NEWS12705.dtl
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 05:53, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Chinatown, San Francisco. 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:
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=%2Fexaminer%2Farchive%2F1999%2F03%2F09%2FNEWS12705.dtl
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080905182650/http://www.chinatowncdc.org/about/history/index.html to http://www.chinatowncdc.org/about/history/index.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:24, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: I want to add more on media because media has change over the years. I want to see the different time frames of the media back then and the media of today. For example do more people know about chinatown because the pictures and the new trends of tours.Blanca2019 (talk) 17:03, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Media 

message: Lead: The lead of the article is highly informative, but precise in addressing the popularity of San Francisco, Chinatown. It lures the readers in by discussing the popularity in contrast to the Golden Gate Bridge, another popular SF attraction.
Structure: The structure begins by discussing the popularity and demographic, it later talks about the historical aspect of SF Chinatown. It allows the reader to pick the area of the article they are interested in reading with ease.
Balance: Balanced article, great amount of information spread out throughout the sections.
Neutrality: Overall the neutrality of the article is there and the article is not biased.
Source Reliability: The sources cited in the article are reliable sources.
Overview: Overall the content in the article is very reliable and abundant. I think the article offers are great deal of information to people unaware of the historical aspects of SF Chinatown Vsharma12 (talk) 21:16, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Peer Review 

message: Please contribute to Talk:Jack_Kerouac_Alley#North_Beach? re: whether or not Jack Kerouac Alley is in Chinatown or North Beach. Thanks! ---Another Believer (Talk) 18:56, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jack Kerouac Alley 

message: Previously, this article seems to neglect the historical development of and dynamics around Chinatown as a tourist location. I have added multiple sections to the history portion to correct for this. Previously the article only mentioned tourism at a few points yet the dynamics of tourism in Chinatown have actually been heavily influential in the area's social, political, and economic development Historystudent07 (talk) 19:03, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Neglecting Developments of Tourism 

message: — Assignment last updated by Cdawg frr (talk) 15:41, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: Wiki Education assignment: Writing 1 TR

message: grant at bush 3MRB1 (talk) 11:53, 19 December 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  no paifang picture ?