Talk:San Francisco Department of Public Health

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Mmurphy36. Peer reviewers: Blanca2019.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 03:18, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 27 September 2018 and 14 December 2018. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Samsmith210, Kstancyk. Peer reviewers: JennWen.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 03:18, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Ideas for Improvement of the Article

- Include department emblem picture
- Include differentiating departments within SFDPH/brief description of each
- Brief overview of the impact of Mark Zuckerberg on the department and other related SFDPH subdivisions - Add more detailed information to the introduction paragraph
- Search for reliable resources via library
- Research peer-review articles about the department (possible impacts SFDPH has on the surrounding communities) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mmurphy36 (talk • contribs) 16:52, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Possible Resources to Include:

- Historical impact of China Town plague in relation to SFPDH textbook

- HIV and AIDS annual Report Archive

- Community Health Equity and Promotion (CHEP) Branch

- Bridge HIV Cooperation with SFDPH

- San Francisco Public Library Digital Archives

   I suggest to many add important health benefits of today. For example, how this public health improve throughout the years. Blanca2019 (talk) 19:06, 14 February 2018 (UTC)Blanca Sanchez

References

Pharmacy Students' Suggested Wiki Edits

We are a group of students who would like to make the following edits primarily in regards to adding a section regarding "Public Sanitation Standards." This section will include the following:

• Add number of districts in San Francisco city with maps and local district supervisors' names. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Samsmith210 (talk • contribs) 02:25, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
• Add information about sanitation standards for Districts 5 and 6 (hopefully all districts).
• Add information on scheduled street and mechanical sweeping within these districts.
• Add source information about HIV prevalence in San Francisco and how it will stop the spread of disease given the needle disposal stations.
• Expand on modern sanitation programs currently in place via information on Lava mae stops, pit stop program, street cleaning hotline team, and street cleaning schedule. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jeremie27471 (talk • contribs) 22:55, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

Peer Review

Peer Review by Group 23:

1) Does the draft submission reflect a neutral point of view? If not, specify... Yes, this group improved the article without introducing any biases. They included a lot of new information, such as the availability of 24 hour needle disposal. They also replaced outdated information with more recent information; for example, providing more recent numbers of pit stop locations in San Francisco. Great job! Mandyhanks (talk) 04:29, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

2) Are the points included verifiable with cited secondary sources that are freely available? If not, specify... Yes! Much of the new information comes directly from the SFDPH website, which is a reliable and freely available source. I did notice that some of the information on street sweeping/cleaning came from the SFDPW. Though this is a reputable source, I think this may be information more relevant for that department's own wiki page. If you would like to keep that information in the article, it may help to include how the two departments are linked on this issue.Parktj94 (talk) 17:39, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

3) Are the edits formatted consistent with Wikipedia’s manual of style? If not, specify… Overall the group members did a great job with writing within the style of wikipedia. All edits were neutral, factual, and informative. One thing I noticed was that there were a lot of numbers, which can be a good thing. However, given that the Public Sanitation section is relatively small compared to other wikipedia sections, the use of numbers reads almost like a recipe rather than an encyclopedia. One recommendation is to take some numbers out to be a little less specific and more general. A1016neo (talk) 05:43, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

4) Is there any evidence of plagiarism or copyright violation? If yes, specify... After cross-checking with the cited sources, I feel that this group did a good job paraphrasing the ideas from the sources into their own words. I did not notice any evidence of plagiarism or copyright violation. Each group member did a great job contributing one to two paragraphs detailing the public sanitation efforts SFDPH has made, and one group member also created a new section on CHEP. The group drew from multiple sources, and were able to translate some maps and images from some of these sources into descriptions using words. Overall they did a great job paraphrasing the information, but since this article is predicted to be a "stub," it can benefit from additional content JennWen (talk) 04:16, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

Does the draft submission reflect a neutral point of view? If not, specify…

This draft submission very clearly reflects a neutral point of view. The pharmacy student contributors did a great job of updating this article with the recent efforts of the SFDPH, and they added factual evidence that is both neutral and relevant. I also appreciate the addition of the SFDPH's mission statement. --Alisha Soares (talk) 00:30, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

Are the edits formatted consistent with Wikipedia’s manual of style?

Wiki is a database that encourages clear, concise, and organized writing. For the most part, these edits achieved this goal. However, I did notice that actions accomplished by SF Public Works were brought in, and, as a lay reader, this seems out-of-place as the article should focus on the goals and actions of the SFDPH. If the two groups are related in some way, their exact relation would be a great addition to the article!Wackybanana (talk) 03:45, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

Is there any evidence of plagiarism or copyright violation? If yes, specify...

I could not find any evidence of plagiarism or copyright violation in these edits. Each edit used original language and was referenced. Hgoossen (talk) 04:38, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

Are the points included verifiable with cited secondary sources that are freely available? If not, specify...

Although most of the sources are verifiable, with the very impressive inclusion of the SFDPH annual report, some sources are not as easy to obtain. I had a difficult time trying to trace sources 3 and 4: The Chinese in America: A Narrative History and Plague, fear, and politics in San Francisco's Chinatown. I would recommend that the student contributors go back and edit these two sources so the links are easily available. Also, I would recommend that the student contributors revise their citation for source 8 as it does not need to be cited as it currently is in the text. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AshneelKrishna (talk • contribs) 05:05, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

SFDPH Response to Global Coronavirus Pandemic Response

Update required to flesh-out SFDPH response to Coronavirus global pandemic. RJSLOAN (talk) 15:47, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

San Francisco County was required to report to California Health and Human Services agency county-wide coronavirus positivity test data for state permission to open up additional sectors of the local economy.

County-level Coronavirus positivity test data hid intra-county pockets of high positivity test rates. Via a research partnership with UCSF, the Latino Task Force uncovered the fact that residents in the Mission neighborhood were disproportionately infected with the coronavirus. This intra-county finding exposed the fact that San Francisco's 'Latinex' population worked in essential jobs across the city which exposed them to the coronavirus at far higher rates than a tech-industry worker who could do their job remotely from the safety of home.

When asked by community advocates for intra-county, granular coronavirus positivity test data, PCR test 'CT virus-shed' value and contact-tracing efficacy data, San Francisco Department of Public Health data-reporting staff resisted providing more granular, intra-county test data that might have allowed essential workers to better assess workplace risk in various neighborhoods.

To-date, six months into the coronavirus global pandemic, the San Francisco Department of Public Health maintains a public stance of being 'culturally responsive' to various neighborhood viral-mitigation needs without providing intra-county, coronavirus test-site data as a starting point. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RJSLOAN (talk • contribs) 16:09, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

• Please refer to WP:CS on how to properly format your citations. You need to include inline citations from reputable, third party sources to support your edits. Otherwise, nobody knows where you're getting your information from. It's ok to stumble a few times with your earlier edits, but I advise you to try a couple of drafts in your sandbox before committing live edits; it's less disruptive that way. Happy editing. Regards. — BriefEdits (talk) 05:22, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

Seriously? You deleted an entire paragraph of text due to a malformed citation by a new user? Instead of simply fixing it? Not a good look. Trying to reconnect (talk) 14:51, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

• Unfortunately, as much as I encourage editors to be WP:BOLD, not every editor can fact-check and hunt for references done by uncited edits, as we all only have so much time in a day to dedicate to this platform. In this case, the only "citation" that we got is a link to a research organization without specific references to support the information written. Without the proper citations, it just comes off as WP:OR. It is also standard procedure to revert uncited material per WP:DDE. Regards. — BriefEdits (talk) 23:39, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

So now he's a "disruptive editor"? Just because you can't take the time to check his sources (while having the time to delete his edits)? Not a good look. Trying to reconnect (talk) 16:03, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

• If you'd like to reinstate the portion reverted (with the proper research and inline citations supporting its points), then more power to you. If not, I'm really not sure how to proceed with this conversation if all I am met with is rhetorical questions. Regards. — BriefEdits (talk) 21:16, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

I have no particular attachment to that text, and it may or may not belong in the article. But I think a good way to proceed is not to call good faith editors "disruptive", and not to undo their edits with poor pretexts. Trying to reconnect (talk) 22:49, 12 September 2020 (UTC)