:::So between those two sections, there is not a single source that is independent, reliable, secondary, and actually about D.C. <span style="font-family:courier"> -- [[User:Tamzin|<span style="color:#E6007A">Tamzin</span>]]</span><sup class="nowrap">[[[User talk:Tamzin|<i style="color:#E6007A">cetacean needed</i>]]]</sup> <small>([[User:Tamzin/🤷|they|xe]])</small> 01:45, 29 August 2024 (UTC)
:::So between those two sections, there is not a single source that is independent, reliable, secondary, and actually about D.C. <span style="font-family:courier"> -- [[User:Tamzin|<span style="color:#E6007A">Tamzin</span>]]</span><sup class="nowrap">[[[User talk:Tamzin|<i style="color:#E6007A">cetacean needed</i>]]]</sup> <small>([[User:Tamzin/🤷|they|xe]])</small> 01:45, 29 August 2024 (UTC)
::::Actually, you know what, here's a breakdown of every source currently in the article:
::::I'm sure I made a few mistakes in there, and the boundaries between some of the categories is a bit blurry, but I think overall this paints a picture of what we're up against: A large portion of this article is built on non-independent sourcing. Some degree of that would be okay for straightforward facts, but this greatly exceeds that, with the use of primary non-independent sources allowing room for stealthy SYNTH and undue weight.
::::As you can see, I also uncovered a significant reliability issue among even the independent sources in the course of this audit, but that's easier to fix, and if I have time tomorrow I'll get to replacing or removing those as appropriate. The awkward middle ground of reliable-but-not-independent is where it's a bit tougher, but again I think dramatically cutting back on our usage of such sources would fix a number of this article's problems. <span style="font-family:courier"> -- [[User:Tamzin|<span style="color:#E6007A">Tamzin</span>]]</span><sup class="nowrap">[[[User talk:Tamzin|<i style="color:#E6007A">cetacean needed</i>]]]</sup> <small>([[User:Tamzin/🤷|they|xe]])</small> 05:46, 29 August 2024 (UTC)
Revision as of 05:46, 29 August 2024
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Washington, D.C. article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Cities, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of cities, towns and various other settlements 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.CitiesWikipedia:WikiProject CitiesTemplate:WikiProject CitiesWikiProject Cities
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Library of Congress, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Library of Congress 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.Library of CongressWikipedia:WikiProject Library of CongressTemplate:WikiProject Library of CongressLibrary of Congress
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Urban studies and planning, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Urban studies and planning 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.Urban studies and planningWikipedia:WikiProject Urban studies and planningTemplate:WikiProject Urban studies and planningUrban studies and planning
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Geography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of geography 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.GeographyWikipedia:WikiProject GeographyTemplate:WikiProject Geographygeography
In 2020, myself and a few other editors did a comprehensive redesign of this article's collage. We looked at the corpus of available quality images, considered the various visual signifiers of the city (going beyond just the touristy National Mall view), and applied established best practices for collage composition. The version we came up with (above left) I thought was really good. Unfortunately, image collages have a bad habit of deteriorating if not closely monitored, and when I checked in recently, it had deteriorated to the version on the right. Going through the changes:
The deteriorated version puts the captions under each individual image rather than at the bottom, breaking up its visual cohesion and increasing its overall length (which is particularly bad, since space is at a high premium given the article's already-long infobox). There can be an argument for doing that sometimes when the captions are really important (although personally I think such cases are very rare), but given that many of D.C.'s icons are globally recognizable, it's particularly weak here.
The 2020 design has a nice balance. It includes three images of iconic National Mall landmarks, but balances those with others: the National Cathedral, representing all D.C.'s landmarks outside the Mall; a featured picture of a WMATA station, a system known for its iconic architecture and encountered daily by many Washingtonians; storefronts in Adams Morgan, giving a sense of D.C.'s economic character and local neighborhoods; and displays in the Air and Space Museum to represent the Smithsonian museums.
The choices in the deteriorated version, by contrast, are weak. Collage images appear smaller than normal ones, so it's important that they look good at small scale. The top image is far too zoomed out to work for that — the Capitol building is miniscule, and basically nothing else is visible. Farther down, I'm flattered that an image I took of the Wharf is used, but it's very generic — it could be a marina in any city, so does nothing to visually identify D.C. The image of Georgetown is also so far zoomed out that the only identifiable element is the Key Bridge, which is not exactly the Golden Gate. The Smithsonian Castle image, while nice, is a poorer choice to represent D.C.'s museums than a gallery interior — someone who doesn't live here is unlikely to know what that building is, so it just adds to this article's overload of building exterior images rather than instantly connoting museums.
Given all this, I propose that we restore the curated 2020 design. Courtesy pinging Cristiano Tomás, who reverted my recent attempt to do so, and APK, who was involved in the redesign. Sdkbtalk00:45, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm trying to figure out why including an interior Metro image is ludicrous. Metro's interior brutalist design is an iconic feature. Overall there are way too many photos in the article. Same goes for a lot of the neighborhood pages. APKhi :-) (talk) 03:57, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Cristiano Tomás has now reverted the edit twice, without engaging here, most recently with summary restoring stable montage - it is BAD PRACTICE to have INDOOR IMAGES in a city's montage, I dont know how many times I have to write this. From Tokyo to Toronto, Paris to Beijing, London to Los Angeles. There doesn't seem to be any blanket consensus that I'm aware of that it is bad practice to have indoor images in the city, and examples of other cities that don't happen to have indoor images doesn't constitute one. Building from first principles, images in city collages ought to be visual signifiers representative of the city, and if indoor images fit that bill, why not use them? Sdkbtalk03:59, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Sdkb Unfortunate wording, my bad. I'd call it rather unnatural. The current image is dark, the depths even more so, and the building appears to have a color gradient from yellowish to almost dark grey, despite being actually white. Since we're on the topic: we could possibly crop the image of the Capitol to center the dome a bit more. –Tobias (talk) 17:10, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
July 2024
Some of the pictures feel really dated (i.e., 2000's) and it would be nice to have a more recently taken images on the page. Arkamus24 (talk) 03:08, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for raising this here. For ease of reference, here is the proposed new collage. Compare it to "2020 consensus" at the top of the Talk page.
Going photo by photo, I think that the 2020 picture of the Mall, with the Lincoln Memorial and the Washington Monuments prominent and identifiable, serves as a better visual summary of the District. Iconic as it were. The proposed replacement, at thumbnail size, fails in that regard. The picture of the Capitol Dome is a nice one, probably a better "photo", but personally I preferred the one that included a bit of green and blue, as well as more visual context. I'm not crazy about the 2020 pic of the Spirit of St. Louis (it's kind of monotonic, and cluttered) but I prefer to the exterior photo of what IMHO is not a very interesting building. I'd sum up by saying that I haven't got any objection to updating the collage but the pictures we choose need to do as good a job or better of giving the reader a quick and comprehensible visual summary - or at least sampler - of the District. JohnInDC (talk) 11:38, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@JohnInDC Above there is no consensus on which photo collage should remain in the article. Furthermore, the montage with the panoramic image of the city was in the article long before this discussion started and most articles about cities have panoramic images in their photo gallery. Why would Whashigton, DC, be any different? What is the problem with the photo collage proposed by me? Is there any way we can reach an agreement? Chronus (talk) 22:31, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I see a March 3-17, 2024, consensus to retain the 2020 version over another that had been proposed and discussed. That's quite recent. Separately - this is an FA, its visual features are important, and there's a caution embedded in the source that asks editors to come here and obtain consensus before making changes to the carefully curated collage. Indeed for those reasons just two days ago I reverted similar changes and asked the editor to bring the matter here, which he did, and I responded this morning. That discussion is barely underway. Can we let that one play out a bit before we take on another? Pinging @APK, @Sdkb, @PRRfan and @Cristiano Tomás, who participated in the March discussion. JohnInDC (talk) 23:43, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Here are links to prior collage discussions, dating to 2018. These may be helpful in our discussion.
Any montage with an interior shot of a metro is a non-starter in my opinion (and completely breaks convention and precedent of nearly every city infobox montage on Wikipedia). Other than that, the Air and Space picture is not really interesting visually (the pic chosen could be confused with any random office park in VA, minus the spire) - plenty of other smithsonian museums could fit that space better, like the NMAAHC or the national gallery. The image of the Capitol dome should also be ideally a daylight image, like any image in the infobox. Best, Cristiano Tomás (talk) 13:57, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm really mystified by this rash of unilateral, undiscussed edits to the photo collage in contravention of the request in the source code. Today's makes three separate revisions in the space of four days. This is a Featured Article and it doesn't work for different editors to come by every other day to revise the collage to include those photos that each editor prefers. It's not hard to show suggested changes on the Talk page and let interested editors hash it out. Cristiano, thanks for your comments. JohnInDC (talk) 17:02, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is widely agreed that indoor pictures are bad practice for the collage. Therefore, the Metro and the interior of the museum must be replaced with other, outdoor images. If this is not done, then the page fails to conform with Wiki standards. For a city filled with iconic structures and neighborhoods, it's very easy to find replacements. Cristiano and I are on the same page here. Therefore, with a vote of 2 to 1, it's clear those images should be replaced. Dmford13 (talk) 01:46, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for coming here to discuss your concerns. Personally, I'm okay with the Metro photo - as someone pointed out above, the design is iconic, a marker of design in Washington in the 20th century, literally award-winning. I'm also not sure there's any Wikipedia standard or guideline that forbids or cautions against interior photos in photo collages - I would think instead it's just common practice. Separately, Consensus is not a vote. After you peruse that link I think you'll agree these issues need more airing before we close out discussion.
All that said, I take your points, and wouldn't fall on my sword to keep the Metro photo. What photo - or photos - would you, or anyone, propose to put in its place; and why that photo? Let's see what we can agree on. Thanks again for talking about it. JohnInDC (talk) 12:06, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am not aware of any guidelines stating this as well. Changing the image of the metro isn't useful, as it's not possible to show a metro from the outside. However, this is different for the image of the National Air and Space Museum. –Tobias (talk) 12:12, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The current Air & Space photo does portray the famous Spirit of St. Louis, which is a nice illustration of what can be viewed there (better than a photo of the moon rocks!), but I've always thought the thing to be a bit dark and monochromatic. Though, if we were to replace it I don't know that I'd use an exterior shot of that museum. It's - okay, but not particularly distinctive or attractive. Also, Washington being what it is, there's a big temptation to include pictures of the many famous buildings here - and there sure are a lot - but they tend to be of the same kind in the same place, which is repetitive and boring and doesn't give a good, rounded sense of all the things the city is. I suspect that's how we wound up with more interior shots than perhaps the usual big-city collage gets. Maybe the Smithsonian Castle? I dunno. Just spit-balling here. JohnInDC (talk) 12:52, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Right, that's why I changed it with a photo of stores in Georgetown. The picture was placed right next to the stores of Adams Morgan. The whole page doesn't include any pics of the commercial part of Georgetown, which is probably the most famous part of the city outside of the Mall and downtown area. I suggest adding a picture of the storefronts in Georgetown and have that replace the museum. Dmford13 (talk) 03:46, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What specific files do you suggest for the swap? A picture of Georgetown could be nice, but I would rather replace the Adams Morgan pic — museums are an iconic part of D.C.'s identity and should ideally be represented in the collage, whereas storefronts in Georgetown would more represent D.C.'s economy/neighborhood life, which is what the Adams Morgan pic currently does. (I am slightly hesitant to go with Georgetown over Adams Morgan, though, since swankier ≠ automatically better, and Adams Morgan is perhaps more typical of D.C. neighborhood commercial districts.) Sdkbtalk04:43, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Here I do have a preference - the Adams Morgan photo adds a nice splash of color to a collection of photos of a town that seems to feature little color otherwise. The photo is well-composed, nicely lit, and takes in several storefronts. The proposed Georgetown photo is none of those - it's just a backlit photo of the Gap (which doesn't even occupy the building any more). I also agree with the observation that Adams Morgan is a little more representative of Washington-on-the-ground. I'd keep it in place of Georgetown, even a good photo. Perhaps someone could locate a photo of Federal style housing on Capitol Hill, or Georgetown, to illustrate some of the city's wonderful housing stock (even if it's out of reach of all but the wealthiest). JohnInDC (talk) 12:23, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Here's the Georgetown photo, at collage size, for ease of reference:
Hm, I just noticed that one of the Georgetown pictures was substituted for the Air & Space one several weeks ago, without noting it here or in the edit summary. That's disappointing - I thought we were talking about it and trying to reach consensus.
I think that Georgetown photo (all three of them in fact) are colorless and uninteresting and not worthy of the photo montage that headlines the page. Something showing the lovely federal residential architecture of Georgetown or the Hill would be much more suitable and I'll see about finding something. If I make a change I'll be sure to mention it here. JohnInDC (talk) 23:27, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I found a high-quality, recent photo of Key Bridge and substituted it for the storefronts. It's outdoors, colorful and iconic and IMHO is a distinct improvement. JohnInDC (talk) 23:35, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for noticing the undiscussed change. It looks like you actually substituted out the museum photo rather than the storefronts photo, which doesn't seem like an improvement to me. I'm open to replacing the Adams Morgan photo, especially since it appears oversaturated, but I'd want some replacement that captures the character of a local D.C. neighborhood. I don't think the bridge photo really does that. Sdkbtalk15:30, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is the image (Georgetown stores) that was replaced with the Key Bridge one. I don't consider the colorful Adams Morgan image to be a problem, especially in its smaller size in the infobox. —ADavidB17:03, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The undiscussed change had replaced the Air & Space photo (suitably representative, but interior, dark) with the Georgetown one, which to my eyes is nondescript, kind of bland and, at thumbnail size, could be any three buildings from any east coast city. Really not up to FA inbox snuff. Rather than revert the change I tried to find something else to put in, as the museum photo seems to leave some folks cold. I made an (admittedly) quick search for photos of nice DC residential housing and, failing to turn up anything that looked like much, chose the Key Bridge photo instead. I'm not wedded to the bridge photo at all but do think that any substitute needs to be visually compelling. We can leave the bridge photo, or go back to the museum pending a search, but I think the Georgetown photo is a non-starter. Thanks. JohnInDC (talk) 12:15, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I see we had some editing back-and-forth yesterday that I missed. The "stable version" was of the Air & Space museum, not Key Bridge. I'm going to revert to that one pending consensus on a replacement, which only wants for the finding. JohnInDC (talk) 12:22, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
1965 map...
See in this edit:
The legend on the map notes that it was "photorevised" in 1983. That revision appears to have removed most of the "tempos" which were in the mall area until around 1970 (the caption is inaccurate because it does not take the revision into account) TEDickey (talk) 00:53, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Semi-protected edit request on 4 May 2024
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
The geocode currently provided for Washington, D.C. actually corresponds to Baltimore, Maryland.
@NDMIwiki: Hi! I'm seeing coordinates at the top of the article that are for a point roughly north of the Capitol Building and no other coordinates. Where in the article are you seeing the coordinates that are for a Baltimore location? ~ Pbritti (talk) 16:06, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I apologize — looking at it now looks fine, but when I looked at it earlier and clicked, it took me to a location in downtown Baltimore. It may have just been a glitch in translation, or momentary. NDMIwiki (talk) 20:36, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Semi-protected edit request on 5 May 2024
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
The first paragraph of this wiki should be replaced with this amended and more acurate version*********
"Washington, D.C., formally the District of Columbia,(renamed in 1871) formally the Territory of Columbia (named Sep 9th 1791) and now commonly called Washington or D.C., is the capital city and federal district of the United States.
The city of Washington is positioned on the Potomac River, across from Virginia, and shares land borders with Maryland to its north and east. The city of Washington, was named for one of our founding fathers and 1st President, George Washington. The surrounding territory, the District of Columbia, was named in honor of Christopher Columbus. Columbia, being the female personification of Columbus, and at the time, it was a commonly known patriotic reference for the United States during the American Revolution. The city of Washington was founded in 1790. When Congress passed the residence Act, the 100 square mile territory established around would eventually become the Territory and then District of Columubia. Although the territory would not be recognized by the states, that it was taken from until 1801. Even so, the 6th Congress season was held in the unfinished capital building in 1800. 2603:6080:EA05:A148:84E3:7DD4:BCEF:4E8A (talk) 05:52, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Okay but that's not saying they're any different. There is one entity, the District of Columbia, which is also known as "Washington". Just like how the City and County of San Francisco are the exact same entity, or the city of New Orleans and Orleans Parish. We need more than Blackmamba31248 saying they're different to split the article, you need to explain why and how. --Golbez (talk) 14:50, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The state of Louisiana disagrees - Orleans Parish is equal to the city of New Orleans. They are the same entity, in all ways. Just like how Washington and the district are the same entity. --Golbez (talk) 19:46, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also, this is your third time now, perhaps at some point you'll figure out how the article is spelled that you want created. --Golbez (talk) 19:47, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
FAR absolutely needed, unless someone’s willing to save the article here. the most prominent problem is in the number of citations needed, in addition to numerous unsourced sentences/paragraphs. other problems include the excessively long lead, the [unreliable source?] and [obsolete source] tags, and the numerous single-sentence paragraphs. if i’m being honest, most city WP:GA articles are better than this. 750h+14:56, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The lead was reworked last month and is now of a reasonable size (IMO), but the other issues remain unaddressed, and I agree it's FAR time unless someone steps forward soon. Queen of Heartstalk06:37, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I may take a crack at the next section, "Founding", which slogs through several over-detailed paragraphs of (often unsourced) background before it gets to the actual founding. But before I do that I have to figure out what the actual narrative there should be. It's kind of hard to tease it out of the current material, which is itself a sign. JohnInDC (talk) 13:11, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Issues are still present - 20 CN tags among other things. Some content is also outdated, such as The Government Accountability Office and other analysts have estimated that the city's high percentage of tax-exempt property and the Congressional prohibition of commuter taxes create a structural deficit in the district's local budget of anywhere between $470 million and over $1 billion per year. sourced to sources from 2003 and 2011. Since D.C. does not have enough shelter units available, every winter it books hotel rooms in the suburbs with an average cost around $100 for a night. According to the D.C. Department of Human Services, during the winter of 2012 the city spent $2,544,454 on putting homeless families in hotels,[310] and budgeted $3.2 million on hotel beds in 2013.[311] is also statistics from about 10 years ago. Private school enrollment figures given are from 2008, while the charter school enrollment is from 2010. The rest of the article needs reviewed for such out-of-date content as well. Hog FarmTalk23:42, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've tackled a few of the cns, mostly by removing tangential content. I think this is salvageable but it'll still be a lot of work. Content not actually about D.C. has crept in in a number of places; lots of things that should be one-sentence summaries wind up accruing several sentences of fluff; and the Media section is an undersourced mess based largely on primary sources. (Disclaimer: I have a COI with respect to The Atlantic, which is the subject of one of the offending paragraphs.) Primary-source .gov cites are also a major issue regarding demographic claims in a number of sections. I'll keep poking at this but I think the issues may run too deep. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe) 04:18, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Arlington National Cemetery and other things that are not in D.C.
This article has a major problem with staying on-topic.
Dmford13 has restored an off-topic paragraph I removed about Arlington National Cemetery. The cemetery is one of several details I've removed from the article lately because it is not in Washington, D.C. Dmford's argument is
Also appropriately mentioned on this page despite not actually being in DC: Pentagon, Washington Commanders, Rosslyn, Tysons, Silver Spring, BWI, Reagan National, Dulles Airport, almost the entire private sector part of the economy section, US Air Force memorial, National Harbor, Old Town Alexandria, 9/11 Pentagon Memorial, Mount Vernon, tomb of the unknown soldier, PBS, MARC, VRE, numerous bus systems. They're mentioned because they all relate to DC and the people who live there or visit.
To be clear, there are obviously some cases when not-in-D.C. locations would be due to mention here: Namely, when secondary reliable sources discuss them in the context of D.C. The only secondary source cited for Arlington National Cemetery is this listing in a USNWR list of "Best Things To Do in Washington, D.C." However, the cemetery is ranked 15th on that list. All of these are ranked higher, but not currently mentioned: the White House, the Lincoln Memorial, the WWII Memorial (also wow what a horrible pick for #4), the Korean and Vietnam War Memorials, the MLK Memorial. the Air & Space Museum. the African American History Museum, the Holocaust Memorial & Museum, the National Gallery of Art, the Kennedy Center, the Natural History Museum, and the National Cathedral. But instead we mention four semi-arbitrary spots in D.C. (Jefferson Memorial but not White House??) and then, inexplicably, an entire paragraph on a place in another state, most of it sourced to its official website.
Now, if there are secondary sources about the impact of Arlington National Cemetery on D.C.'s tourist economy, by all means, let's cite that. I don't know if they exist, and they probably still wouldn't justify a full paragraph, but certainly such sources exist for the relevance of a number of things Dmford mentioned. But otherwise, yeah, a lot of these shouldn't be in the article, at least not unless someone can show sources discussing them in the context of D.C. This is an article about D.C., not about the D.C. Metro area, not about the United States federal government. Those things are covered in their own articles; they only belong here where sources show their relevance. So of the remaining examples Dmford gave, I would propose that, in addition to removing the Arlington paragraph (without prejudice against mentioning it more briefly per the USNWR source, if someone gets the Tourism section to a decent place), we should also remove:
The paragraph about companies based in Northern Virginia. (USA Today and Gannett, despite not being based in D.C., manage to get mentioned in two separate sections this way.)
The paragraph about landmarks in Northern Virginia and in Maryland, including the utter trivia of the National Spelling Bee being held in Maryland.
Probably more, but this is just based on the examples Dmford gave
... unless there exists adequate reliable secondary sourcing showing that they are relevant to D.C. or its residents. Even there, the prose should be phrased in that context, e.g. Many D.C. residents work for businesses in Northern Virginia, such as... (which I imagine one can find sources for).
What do others think? This is a featured article in name still. I don't see any way to give it even a chance of staying that way without cutting all this bloat and meandering. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe) 20:50, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks very much for raising this here. Your presentation is much better than the one I wasn't going to get around to doing anyhow.
It's a little sticky, because "Washington DC" is shorthand for so many things that aren't necessarily confined to the District's actual borders, and this article is a handy place to collect them. Tourist activities, headquarters of national organizations - it seems at some level a little pedantic to exclude them from mention simply because (in the case of Arlington, since we're talking about it) they may lie immediately across the river.
But at the same time I agree about bloat and cruft, the desperate need to pare the article down. I further believe that most of the other examples offered by DMFord do not warrant mention here. Maybe linked (almost as a See Also) in a separate section, "Nearby points of interest" - I don't know. Passing mention at most. The article of course is not, in the end, a Tourist Guide. There are websites for that.
What I do think is that, whatever rule or principle we strive toward, it should be as simple and objective as possible. Maybe 3d party sourcing is the way to go. Part of me fears that then instead of arguing about our own opinions we'd probably wind up arguing about how much 3d party sourcing is enough; but it still seems like a step in the right direction. JohnInDC (talk) 21:12, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
One approach, which would sidestep some of this, is to put the article on a sort of primary source "diet". For every primary source in the article that doesn't have an accompanying secondary source showing its relevance, slap an {{npsn}} on it. Anything someone tries to find a non-primary source for and fails, or only finds limited coverage that would not satisfy WP:DUE/WP:BALASP, remove it. I think this would be needed to survive FAR regardless, so the only radical part of this idea is doing it in an aggressive push rather than piecemeal. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe) 21:22, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The paragraph about the surrounding attractions, sure. A paragraph dedicated entirely to a single attraction not in DC? No. I agree with the OP that it should have been removed. --Golbez (talk) 21:18, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think either of these approaches could be made to work, and I would vote for the one that is more likely to help this article claw its way back firmly into FA category. I do kind of like the raw utility of a quick-list of "Washington" type things that aren't actually in the District, but acknowledge that that can get quickly out of hand. Arlington National Cemetery, sure. (Not that it really matters but Arlington was part of the District when the Lee Mansion was built!) Likewise the FBI, if it moves to the 'burbs. But the NRA in Fairfax or NIST in Maryland? I don't know. Of the list at the top of this topic I can see mentioning the Pentagon and whatever new name FedEx field just got, if directly tied to the Washington Commanders, but everything else just seems - adjacent.
I appreciate the "secondary source" approach but wonder if that will work for anything but tourist attractions. You won't find many that assess different agencies or attractions along the measure of "Washingtonian-ness". JohnInDC (talk) 01:06, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well I think that as long as something is in D.C., there's a presumption that it's relevant to this article (although not necessarily DUE). The idea of a source establishing D.C. relevance is only for things that lack that presumption.But my point about secondary sources really runs deeper than the concern that led me to post this section. For instance, § Federal government has
one sentence sourced to a primary source
one sentence that stealthily has no source
one sentence sourced to a tangential source and bordering on SYNTH, which is just regurgitating White House stats anyways
§ Diplomacy has:
one sentence sourced to a .gov
one sourced to washington.org, run by the local tourism industry
one sourced to two self-published works
one to populartimelines.com, which does not appear to be an editorially-reviewed source
I'm sure I made a few mistakes in there, and the boundaries between some of the categories is a bit blurry, but I think overall this paints a picture of what we're up against: A large portion of this article is built on non-independent sourcing. Some degree of that would be okay for straightforward facts, but this greatly exceeds that, with the use of primary non-independent sources allowing room for stealthy SYNTH and undue weight.
As you can see, I also uncovered a significant reliability issue among even the independent sources in the course of this audit, but that's easier to fix, and if I have time tomorrow I'll get to replacing or removing those as appropriate. The awkward middle ground of reliable-but-not-independent is where it's a bit tougher, but again I think dramatically cutting back on our usage of such sources would fix a number of this article's problems. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe) 05:46, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
level-4 vital article is rated FA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.JPG)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
Not done. Too much detail for a lead's first sentence, less concise, and not within MOS. ~ Pbritti (talk) 15:59, 5 May 2024 (UTC)
![[191]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:US_trewartha.svg){kind=link}