Talk:Uncertain geographic context problem

This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Statistics Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Statistics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of statistics 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.StatisticsWikipedia:WikiProject StatisticsTemplate:WikiProject StatisticsStatistics articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.

Geography Low‑importance

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 articles

Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

WikiProject Geography To-do list:

Here are some tasks awaiting attention:

Article requests : See Requested articles/Social sciences/Geography, cities, regions and named places and Missing articles about Locations
Assess : Tag related article talk pages with {{WikiProject Geography}}. To help assess the quality and importance of geography articles, please see: Unassessed geography articles and Unknown-importance geography articles.
Cleanup : See Geography articles needing attention
Deletion sorting : Listed at Geographic related deletion discussions
Geographical coordinates : See Articles missing geocoordinate data by country
Infobox : See Geography articles needing infoboxes
Map : See Wikipedia requested maps
Notability : See Geography articles with topics of unclear notability
Photo : See Wikipedia requested photographs of places
Stubs : See Geography stubs

Maps Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Maps, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Maps and Cartography 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.MapsWikipedia:WikiProject MapsTemplate:WikiProject MapsMaps articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Adding material

In addition to further elaboration, this page needs pictures, and suggested solutions. I suggest using the page for Modifiable areal unit problem as a template. GeogSage (talk) 19:05, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sources for verification

One15969 has added two notifications, one stating that the article needs additional sources for verification, and another stating that it may have excessive sources. OneI5869, could you help me understand these two conflicting notices.

On Google Scholar, searching for the Uncertain geographic context problem comes up with a lot of hits for peer reviewed journals, so I'm confident we can bring in more for verification. I just selected the two originals by Mei-Po Kwan and a couple others to demonstrate the topic is established, and to define it. How many more would you think are good to bring in verification?

The excessive sources is a bit surprising to me. There are five at the beginning to verify the topic. The rest are mostly related to the MAUP and time geography, and I don't believe they are particularly excessive. I'm conflicted on how to mitigate the excessive source problem while simultaneously bringing in more to verify the topic.

The two empty sections are under work by me now, and I appreciate feedback on this. I will be sure to include additional outside sources on the UGCoP with those, rather then relying on the 5 in the first line. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 23:54, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. There should rarely be more than two footnotes. Please read WP:REFBOMB. Several places, as you are aware, you have 4 or 5, you need to select the best two and remove the others. And yet, the second half of the article is uncited. Hence the two separate tags. Hope this helps. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 10:51, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello One15969,

I appreciate the prompt feedback and explanation. I have looked over citations, and moved them around/consolidated them to better reflect your suggestions. I have also added citations, and flushed out the last bit of the page. If you could take a look, and give any further feedback or suggestions, I would apricate it. If I have addressed your concerns, please let remove the notifications (as I originated the page, I don't want to be the one to do that). If you have anything you would like to add or change, please do! I would like there to be more editors then just myself to make it better. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 21:11, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello One15969,

Sorry for pinging you again on this. I saw that you had marked the page as reviewed and I was wondering if you had any further feedback on the citation tags on the page.

GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 04:20, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. There are still several assertions/comments made in the article which are uncited. While not enough not to be marked as reviewed, that tag should remain until they are fixed. Or, it could be removed if those statements are marked with a citation needed tag. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:53, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Onel5969

Thanks again for looking at the page. I believe all assertions and comments should be cited. Is there anything further you think needs to be done for improvement?

GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 23:44, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nope. Nice job. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 01:14, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Awesome! Thank you for your help and feedback. Have a great day!

GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 03:32, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]