Talk:California gold rush/Archive 2

GA

Well done all who have contributed to this article! I have just classed it as a GA. Pity about the recent vandalism. Anyway, the criteria:

Well written: Yes

Factually accurate and verifiable: Excellently referenced, with a wide variety of external links too. Yes

Broad in its coverage: With sections on the origins, the different stages of the rush, what it meant for CA today, and historical analysis, the answer is yes

NPOV: Yup

Stable: Yes

Pictures: Not strictly a requirement, so yes!

I do have some minor quibbles. I feel that the "Discovery of Gold" section is a misnomer, as in its later stages it talks about the end of the Rush - this has nothing to do with the initial discovery or the Rush in its first stages. The end of the "Discovery" section and the beginning of the "49ers" section overlap a bit. "Argonauts" is spelt with both a capital A and a lower case a - yes, I am a pedant!

These cannot stop GA, though, and nor should they. Well done again! Chrisfow 19:43, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your thoughtful attention, and kind words. Careful reading is always appreciated - "Argonauts" is a proper noun in this context, and has now been capitalized throughout. Thank you very much again!NorCalHistory 06:13, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

FA nomination for California Gold Rush article

The California Gold Rush article has been nominated for Featured article status. If you would like to comment on this nomination, please go here to leave your comment. To leave a comment on that page, click the [edit] link to the right of the title California Gold Rush.NorCalHistory 20:00, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Rail transport in United States

Rail transport in the United States is not actually the best link, because the first railway that was built as a result of the Gold Rush was the Panama Railway across the Isthmus of Panama. NorCalHistory 22:37, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Which one would you recommend? Ronbo76 22:40, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, there isn't a perfect one, so the general Rail transport is about the best I can find. Any other suggestions? NorCalHistory 22:50, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

The one I like is hidden as a link in the blue infobox under the Golden Poppy: California and the railroads. I'd recommend we unlink that one and substitute with the one recommended by NorCalHistory. It even mentions the Panama connection as per your original thought to change the link that was changed. Ronbo76 22:55, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

California and the railroads actually looks pretty good for this context (that article could use some touching up, but not so much that the link shouldn't go here). Any other suggestions? NorCalHistory 23:13, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

1849 in the blue side banner and category - could be in error and needs correction.

The Gold Rush started in '48 which leads me to believe the side banner is incorrect. I could see how that could be editted. Also, the category at the bottom reads something like the 1849 year. It might need to read multiple years or the more definite 1848 year. Ronbo76 02:54, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Fixed. It was just a quick edit to {{California history sidebar}}. BlankVerse 15:13, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Main page appearance coming in about 48 hours

As you may be aware, this article is set to be the Main page Featured article in about 48 hours, beginning at midnight UTC, February 14, 2007. You are probably also know that Main page articles typically undergo substantial vandalism beginning about now, peaking during the Main page appearance, and continuing for some days after. Assistance from all who are watching this article is very much appreciated during these next five days or so! NorCalHistory 23:37, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

PBS link retired - see *The Gold Rush: fun facts

The link has been retired but has a clickable link to The Gold Rush which has much of the same info about the PBS program (now on DVD), fun facts, etal. Ronbo76 21:18, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Main page appearance in about 6 hours

Thankfully light vandalism as we approach going live on the Main page in less than 6 hours. Thank you to our sturdy vandal patrol! NorCalHistory 18:20, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Drive-by edit

Well, we've had a visit from a drive-by editor, just 90 minutes before going up on the Main page. Fortunately, most of these edits are harmless. I'm just going to revert the ones that don't help or are awkward writing, etc. The balance of these drive-by edits I'll save for discussion after the article's off the Main page. NorCalHistory 22:28, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Request no further substantive changes to this article for several days

This article goes live as the Main page Featured article in one hour. We are already starting to deal with vandals. Trying to make substantive changes is likely to cause edit conflicts. In addition, editors may find it helpful to review the FA, GA, and peer review discussions before making changes. This is a mature article, and bringing proposed changes to this Talk page first is especially appreciated! NorCalHistory 23:08, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

The page needs to be edited.

The article has been vandalised in the first paragraph. Can someone try to edit the text? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.117.165.66 (talk) 02:14, 14 February 2007 (UTC).

What is the problem? Ronbo76 02:15, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

citation needed for harm from gold mining?

Wow, great!

1. I see a "citation needed" ... will either of these work: [ http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/rwqcb2/news_items/50.doc] Cites first court case against hydraulic mining in the Sierra Nevada, in 1884.

Later in the gold mining history of California, after the "Rush" years, the invention of Gold_cyanidation led to another deeply ugly environmental effect which continues in modern gold mines in Calif and elsewhere.

Also --

2. The passage about Native Americans in California gives an odd impression. California tribes outside of the regions of the Spanish Missions were driven out of various areas by the newcomers, but in general they did not organize to fight back. The Modocs were considered highly unusual in their resistance. How much it had to do with mining is also a fair question. See Modoc_Wars to decide.

Cheers!

Gailwilliams 03:45, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Hargraves para removed

I removed the following section for several reasons. First, it was incorrectly placed, whacking out the table of contents. Second, unreferenced. Third, tangential to the focus of this article (FA criteria requires that topic stays tightly focused); this text would be better placed in the article about Edward Hargraves, and perhaps linked to this article via a See also. Fourth, the text needs copyediting. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:23, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

California's connection to the Australian goldfields

- Many Australians came to California in search of gold in 1849. One such 'forty-niner', Edward Hargraves was so "very forcible impressed" by the similarity of New South Wales with California, that he wrote, in March 1850, to a friend in Sydney, saying he was returning to look for gold. Arriving in Australia, Hargraves had knowledge of the Californian method of panning and cradle rocking. By May 1851, he discovered payable gold in New South Wales. By the end of 1851, the Australian great gold-rushes were underway in Victoria and New South Wales. The Australian gold discoveries were described in the Times as "We have a California of our own". Many of California's 'forty-niners' rushed to Australia's goldfields. Some Americans like Freeman Cobb of Cobb & Co. coaches, helped build cites like Melbourne and make Australian history.(R.M. Younger)

The source has now been added to Further reading; I'm placing it here so it can be employed in the Edward Hargraves article.

• Younger, R.M. 'Wonderous Gold' in Australia and the Australians: A New Concise History, Rigby, Sydney, 1970

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:29, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Citation needed in lead section

All the facts in the lead section are extensively referenced in the body of the article. Please see extensive citations in the body of the article, including specific information relating this last sentence. NorCalHistory 04:47, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Concur. Prior to being Featured, User:NorCalHistory, User:SandyGeorgia etal. did substantial copyedits to this article, proofing it to the utmost. Thanks NorCalHistory and SandyGeorgia! Ronbo76 04:50, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Good faith edits to California Gold Rush

Please see the paragraph prior to this one. Prior to becoming a featured article, the California Gold Rush was proofed by many members of the WP:CAL project to include noteably user:NorCalHistory which was followed by a copyedit yesterday afternoon by user:MisfitToys and follow-on edits by user:SandyGeorgia. Ronbo76 11:13, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:Featured article criteria about edits to this article while it is on featured status. Thanks, Ronbo76 11:56, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Opening line

"...(1848–1852) began in January 1845" Which is the start date, '45 or '48? It would sound better to pick one and stick with it at least until the end of the sentence.--dsws 23:22, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism

I recently left a warning on User talk:Yahoooo123 talk page because he blanked some of this article.Wiki-wikify 22:13, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Proposal to remove date-autoformatting

Dear fellow contributors

MOSNUM no longer encourages date autoformatting, having evolved over the past year or so from the mandatory to the optional after much discussion there and elsewhere of the disadvantages of the system. Related to this, MOSNUM prescribes rules for the raw formatting, irrespective of whether or not dates are autoformatted. MOSLINK and CONTEXT are consistent with this.

There are at least six disadvantages in using date-autoformatting, which I've capped here:

Disadvantages of date-autoformatting

• (1) In-house only

• (a) It works only for the WP "elite".
• (b) To our readers out there, it displays all-too-common inconsistencies in raw formatting in bright-blue underlined text, yet conceals them from WPians who are logged in and have chosen preferences.
• (c) It causes visitors to query why dates are bright-blue and underlined.

• (2) Avoids what are merely trivial differences

• (a) It is trivial whether the order is day–month or month–day. It is more trivial than color/colour and realise/realize, yet our consistency-within-article policy on spelling (WP:ENGVAR) has worked very well. English-speakers readily recognise both date formats; all dates after our signatures are international, and no one objects.

• (3) Colour-clutter: the bright-blue underlining of all dates

• (a) It dilutes the impact of high-value links.
• (b) It makes the text slightly harder to read.
• (c) It doesn't improve the appearance of the page.

• (4) Typos and misunderstood coding

• (a) There's a disappointing error-rate in keying in the auto-function; not bracketing the year, and enclosing the whole date in one set of brackets, are examples.
• (b) Once autoformatting is removed, mixtures of US and international formats are revealed in display mode, where they are much easier for WPians to pick up than in edit mode; so is the use of the wrong format in country-related articles.
• (c) Many WPians don't understand date-autoformatting—in particular, how if differs from ordinary linking; often it's applied simply because it's part of the furniture.

• (5) Edit-mode clutter

• (a) It's more work to enter an autoformatted date, and it doesn't make the edit-mode text any easier to read for subsequent editors.

• (6) Limited application

• (a) It's incompatible with date ranges ("January 3–9, 1998", or "3–9 January 1998", and "February–April 2006") and slashed dates ("the night of May 21/22", or "... 21/22 May").
• (b) By policy, we avoid date autoformatting in such places as quotations; the removal of autoformatting avoids this inconsistency.

Removal has generally been met with positive responses by editors. I'm seeking feedback about this proposal to remove it from the main text (using a script) in about a week's time on a trial basis. The original input formatting would be seen by all WPians, not just the huge number of visitors; it would be plain, unobtrusive text in the prevailing format for the article, which would give greater prominence to the high-value links. BTW, anyone has the right to object, and my aim is not to argue against people on the issue. Tony (talk) 13:20, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Image sizes

I am reluctant to "be bold" in editing this article because it's an FA, but it seems like there's a very serious image size issue here. There is image sandwiching even on a 1440x900 resolution, and on 1024x768 it looks absolutely dreadful. If there are no objections, I will standardize all image sizes (default width 180px). —Ynhockey ^(Talk) 11:20, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Hard-coded image sizes gone. I put a scalar size parameter into the first image so that it would start somewhat bigger than thumbnail, and would scale up and down in size per viewer's resolution width. This article would not have gotten to FA today with pixel sizes specified exactly. Binksternet (talk) 15:46, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

If editors wish for even larger image sizes, the parameter upright=2 (or whatever) can be used in place of upright=1.5 which is what I used. Binksternet (talk) 15:50, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

please, write by korean!!!! i'am korean student

please, write by korean. our korea word was very intelligent so you should write by korean.

ok? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 113.61.29.3 (talk) 11:42, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

gold rush

goldrush went way back.hundreds of years ago a man discovered gold.he tried to hide it.soon word got out that he found gold. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.181.235.19 (talk) 23:32, 27 January 2010 (UTC) shut up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.181.235.19 (talk) 23:35, 27 January 2010 (UTC)