Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Nominator: Ca (talk · contribs) 09:31, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: EF5 (talk · contribs) 17:13, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Hi, I'll be reviewing this as part of GARC. :)

• , and the ground floor of the humanities building, and the library, Suggest rewording to ", the ground floor of the humanities building and the library,".
• List of websites founded before 1995 is linked twice, once in the "Reception" section and again in the "See also" section

• Since its a highly relevant article and the first instance is pretty hidden, I thought to link it twice.

Makes sense, thanks for clarifying. E_F⁵ 01:26, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• I'd recommend adding an infobox, but that is in no way required. Since the camera is not human controlled, would having an image produced by the webcam in the article (under PD-automated?) benefit readers? I'm genuinely asking, I don't usually write about technology.

•  In progress As for the image, I think the placement of the camera counts as creative input, so it's probably non-free. Ca ^{talk to me!} 01:28, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, you're probably right; it's always preferable to err on the safe side when it comes to copyright. E_F⁵ 01:29, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I inserted a screenshot. I don't think an infobox is necessary since the article is quite short.  Done Ca ^{talk to me!} 04:20, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• the road Tapia Drive Remove "the road".

•  Done

• If "Journal of the New Media Caucus" doesn't even have an article, why is reception given by Vogel important/needs to be included?

• The author has some crendentials behind her [1] and the journal is peer-reviewed and only publishes article on an invitational basis [2], so I believed the source to be reliable.

My concern isn't whether it's reliable, it's whether it's a significant-enough source to earn a mention in the article. It seems reliable, though, so it's fine either way. E_F⁵ 01:26, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• San Francisco State University is linked in the "History" section, but not the "operation" section.

•  Done

• [1] - This does verify the information it is cited to, but it doesn't say that the webcam always catches SF's fog. As a result, "and San Francisco's common fog" in the article should be changed to "and occasionally San Francisco's common fog".

•  Done

• [2] - This source is used a lot, but it seems to be good.
• [5] - I don't see a "September 30, 1994" anywhere in the source.

• The source says The webcam will celebrate its 25th birthday on Sept. 30. I assume that was its creation date. Ca ^{talk to me!} 01:12, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, okay. E_F⁵ 01:29, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sources [2], [3], [4], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10] and [11] all verify information (as well as all sourced being formatted correctly). A few fixes above and I'll be happy to pass. E_F⁵ 17:13, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]