Talk:Uncertain geographic context problem

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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

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

Rewrite lead

The lead is way too long for the current size of the article (unroll 'section sizes' above). In addition, after reading the WP:FIRSTSENTENCE, and then the WP:LEADPARAGRAPH, I have no clear idea what it is. The first sentence starts off talking about it as a source of bias, without first saying what it is.

The WP:LEAD is supposed to be a summary of (just the) most important points of the article, but in fact it contains a lot of unique information not found in the article body. One approach might be just to move the whole lead into the body (simply adding a section heading like, say, ==Introduction== or ==Background== above it accomplishes that), and then write a new lead of about 75 to 150 words that really is a summary, above it.

The second problem is that the lead is too technical. There needs to be a straightforward definition and simple summary geared to the non-technical, non-specialist reader. I am finishing up a proposal for this and will be back with it. Mathglot (talk) 03:12, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

Proposed new lead

So, here is my proposed new version. I hope it doesn't seem too dumbed down to you, but at least I can understand what it is, now, and have something to relate it to RW situations to concretize it a bit, before diving into the body. I think it should have a third paragraph with two sentences: one to describe what happens when it is ignored and things go wrong (ie, invalidated), essentially summarizing section § Implications, and one sentence about solutions, summarizing the last section. But my brain is in a fog, and that's too much for me right now. So, here's what I have thus far as a replacement for the existing lead, to be augmented later as outlined:

In geography, public health, and other fields that study spatial relationships, the uncertain geographic context problem (UGCoP) is a methodological problem in which the geographic areas used in research to represent people's environments—such as neighborhoods, census tracts, administrative areas, or activity spaces—may differ from the places and periods that actually shape the phenomena being studied, potentially leading to misleading conclusions.

For example, a study that measures the effect of a person's residential neighborhood on health outcomes may overlook environmental influences encountered while working, traveling, or engaging in activities elsewhere.

References

What do you think? Mathglot (talk) 06:12, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

To be clear: I'm not suggesting removing the content of the current lead from the article—just moving it out of the lead to someplace in the body, and installing a new, simpler, shorter lead instead. Mathglot (talk) 06:17, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

Sounds good! I wrote this article after watching Mei-Po Kwan give a talk from my notes. I hunted down sources afterwards to make sure it was all verifiable, and then published the page. It could be improved. Would recommend including "The UGCoP, was first coined by Mei-Po Kwan in 2012," as this is fairly benign and important to the concept as it is a product of her body of research. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 19:56, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

@GeogSage:, yes, agreed, about including Kwan. Do you have any suggestions for the two-sentence addition for Implications, and Solutions? Also, I'll probably just add ==Introduction== over the current lead to convert it to body text, but that isn't an ideal solution; any ideas? Mathglot (talk) 20:18, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

I've moved the new lead in, but it still needs a couple of sentences added. Mathglot (talk) 03:57, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

On Technical geography and Geography, I opted for a "fundamentals" section rather then "introduction." This is because generally the lede is the introduction to the article per Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section, and a separate introduction section is redundant. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 04:07, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

The lead is more of a summary than a journalistic style introduction. Thousands of articles have an "Introduction" section. (Many more have "Background" or "Overview" sections.) There's nothing wrong with leaving it as "Introduction", but there's nothing wrong with "Fundamentals" as the name of the first section either, so feel free to change it. Cheers, Mathglot (talk) 04:30, 23 June 2026 (UTC)