Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/California Gold Rush

< Wikipedia:Featured article candidates

California Gold Rush edit

I am nominating California Gold Rush, which had an extensive peer review and has been rated a Good article. It is very well-referenced, and meets all of the FA criteria: well-written, comprehensive, factually accurate, neutral and stable. While I did not create the article, I did contribute significant portions. This is the first nomination of this article. NorCalHistory 19:38, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

*Object, mildly. On the whole it's a good article, but it lacks any direct mention of the Pacific Mail Steamship Company (that article also needs some work, by the way), which played an important role in the development of California during the gold rush era, and which was itself greatly affected by the gold discovery. Whyaduck 01:39, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    • Fixed Information was in article; added specific name Pacific Mail Steamship Company (PS: I agree that PMSC article could use some work - sounds like a fascinating topic!).NorCalHistory 03:03, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • OK. I might make a couple of small, clarifying additions to the Pacific Mail article myself (there's a lot of information about the company available online), but haven't the time to do the full expansion the subject deserves.
  • comment I would certainly want to support this, but I see that another editor who is trying to edit war is following me along to articles I work on and inserting links to stand alone years. Your article now contains these unnecesary links--links which I did not and have not touched in any way, but this other editor in his zeal failed to notice this. Sorry this is involved now. No need to say anything in return. I will view any result.
  • Support. Since it is a good article, it should be a featured article. Chris 02:52, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. The lead is unencyclopedic in tone. Comment The lead has been greatly improved in tone and focus, but I'm concerned that it might not adequately summarize the entire article. -Fsotrain09 18:19, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, for now. The lead needs some serious work. The Geology section seems completely out of place here. Some of the writing sounds like a Zagat review guide, what with all the random, short, out-of-context quotes used throughout the text. --DaveOinSF 05:07, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Addressed Please see changes. NorCalHistory 17:08, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment2. From a cursory glance it is improved. I will read it in full a little later when I have time; just putting a note here that I haven't forgotten.--DaveOinSF 19:58, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Support. Nice job. It meets my expectations now.--DaveOinSF 05:11, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose for now. While many parts of the article are excellent, I find the very first paragraph unencyclopedic and written in the form of an argumentative essay rather than an encyclopedic article. Unencyclopedic paragraphs do not belong in FA's (or FACs, for the matter), let alone the lead. Fix (preferably remove) and I will support. --210physicq (c) 05:48, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Addressed Please see changes. NorCalHistory 17:08, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Ok. Even though I still find the first paragraph of the Longer-term effects section (which can be shortened to "long-term effects, BTW) still sounds a bit argumentative and the Geology sections seems out of place, I am willing to change my vote to support even though slight changes can still be made. --210physicq (c) 18:17, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Thanks. If the consensus is that the Geology section still doesn't seem to fit, it can easily be removed, since that daughter article has been created. NorCalHistory 18:46, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. It looks very good for the most part, and is certainly well-referenced. I feel that it is very, very close to FA quality. The parts I'm most concerned about are the lead, and a few other short sections of the text that have the feel of a popular book, rather than an encyclopedia. As noted above, the Geology section is mostly background information, and should probably be moved to its own article with only a brief summary left in the Gold Rush article itself. One addition to the article might be a little on the mythology of the Gold Rush (see, for example, the Levi Strauss & Co. article). BlankVerse 08:13, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. I offered some guidance when this article was in peer review. Since then it has improved to become impressively referenced and comprehensive. Its only shortcoming is the need for a copyedit to eliminate a few civic-boosterism phrases. I may provide that copyedit if my time allows. Those turns of phrase are not entirely unmerited: prior to this era California had been an isolated region of little importance; if it were an independent country today it would have the world's sixth largest economy. I don't think a few minor inconsistencies in tone constitute reason to oppose. All of the underlying FA requirements have been satisfied. DurovaCharge! 17:27, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment This article needs a good map of the Gold Rush area during the Gold Rush era; I added one citation needed tag to the article (on 300,000 arrivals); all wikilinks need be checked to see they are pointing to the desired article; Placerville points to a disambiguation page, for example. Hmains 18:28, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • A map is an excellent suggestion, and the requested cite will be supplied shortly - thanks for catching that link (which has been fixed)! NorCalHistory 18:46, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I contributed to the peer review, and have followed the article and made minor tweaks and suggestions since then. While some improvements can still be made per suggestions above, I believe the fundamentals are in place. Over time, I'd like to see the article grow in the areas of history, immigrants such as the Chinese, and effects, and a daughter article on Forty-Niners created and correctly disambiguated. I agree that a map is a much-needed addition, and it should highlight the site of original gold discovery, as well as Route 49. Sandy (Talk) 18:59, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object. We don't blithely write "in 1848, retrieved 273 pounds (124 kg) of gold in a few months"; we aren't Encyclopedia Britannica. What in the world is the italics supposed to signify, anyway? Why are these 273 pounds equal to 124 kilograms, rather than 102 kilograms? Don't use any pounds at all without explicitly identifying them, after you have made damn sure you know what they are. Does the original source of this statement identify its pounds, either in the place this came from or generally in the introduction? Does that source include the kilograms, or did some Wikipedia editor add that? Does it indicate its source for the numbr, so you can track that down? Is the specific number "273" in that source? Gene Nygaard 09:18, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
. on Page 230: "... in gold; others from a nearby tributary, $12,000 ON THE FEATHER RIVER six miners with fifty Indian workers took out 273 pounds of gold AT SINCLAIR's RANCH Sutter's neighbor, ..."--Paul 16:02, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Response: Gene - I hope the following answers your concerns;
(a) Yes, the figure of 273 pounds is given in the source cited.
(b) When I use any of the standard conversion websites (like this one), they confirm that the metric equivalent of 273 pounds is 124 kilograms.
(c) Italics are used for the word pounds here because all prior references to gold are in ounces. The italics assist the reader to see that a different unit of measurement is being used here.
Do these respond to your concerns? NorCalHistory 18:01, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: 1 kg = 2.2 lbs; Ergo, 273 lbs * (1 kg/2.2 lbs) = 124 kg. --DaveOinSF 19:58, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Your conversion is incorrect because you are converting from avoirdupois pounds to kilograms, rather than from troy pounds. The correct figure in kilograms is 102. Andrew Levine 19:59, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Response Judging that the secondary sources cited are ambiguous whether it is avoirdupois pounds or troy pounds, perhaps the best thing would be not to include a metric equivalent in the main text, but to footnote the metric equivalent of both troy and avoirdupois pounds, with an explanation.NorCalHistory 00:31, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Response There's no possibility of ambiguity because gold is always measured in troy pounds and never avoirdupois. Andrew Levine 00:52, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Always? Get real, Andrew. Troy pounds are only rarely used any more. Why in the world do you suppose I mentioned Encyclopædia Britannica? Every time they mention pounds with respect to gold, they are avoirdupois pounds, though usually not identified as such. Gene Nygaard 05:46, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"Rarely used anymore?" Is that why the New York Mercantile Exchange still denominates gold and silver prices in troy ounces? Andrew Levine 07:09, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Response to NorCalHistory (and DaveOinSF). Respond to my concerns? Most definitely not--it amplifies my concerns. You even seem oblivious to the fact that the troy ounces used for gold are different from avoirdupois ounces, in addition to being unaware of the fact that there are twelve of those troy ounces in a troy pound of gold. That is different from the 16 of the smaller avoirdupois ounces that make up an avoirdupois pound, the one you converted it as. That makes the use of italics in the text doubly confusing.
Do you know how many of those troy ounces it takes to make up one avoirdupois pound, the type of pound for which 273 of them is 124 kg?
Answer: 147⁄12 ounces to the pound. Weirdness we ought to avoid at all costs. Like I said, we aren't Encyclopædia Britannica.
One of the biggest problems, of course, is that troy pounds were more commonly used back in 1848, the time for which this number is quoted. But on the other hand, the number comes from a book written in the 1990s, a time when a whole lot of people are so innumerate as to be totally oblivious to the fact that troy pounds exist, and very often happy to use the comfortable-sounding old word ounces without even having an inkling that the ounces still used in much of the world's gold, platinum, and silver trade are different than the ounces some of us still use for meat or sugar or a baby's birth weight, and different yet again from the ounces we use for beer or soft drinks.
Back in 1848, it was still 30 years before the British would outlaw the troy pound, in the Weights and Measures Act of 1848. Yet, in one of the ultimate illogicalities and weirdnesses in the world of measurement, the UK today, 128 years later in the 21st century, has a specific exemption written into its metrication laws for continued use of troy ounces, even though the pound from which it was derived (and its pennyweight subdivision) were thrown out back in the 19th century.
Of course, in 1948 the troy pound (373.24 grams) remained the primary standard for United States weights. A specific artifact known as the "Troy Pound of the Mint" was the primary standards for all U.S. weights; even the best quality avoirdupois pound standards maintained by the government were secondary standards. That is a situation which had prevailed in England as well since back in the time of Henry VIII, when the independent standards for an avoirdupois ounce, whose independent standard before then had been measured to be about 7002 troy grains, was redefined as exactly 7000 troy grains.
It was 45 years after 1848 that the United States abandoned all independent primary standards for pounds, and redefined the avoirdupois pound as 0.4535924277 kilogram, and another 66 years after that before current world-wide definition of the avoirdupois pound as a slightly different value of 0.45359237 kg was adopted. That value was adopted in part because it is divisible by 7, making the troy grain's representation in metric units a terminating fraction, exactly 64.79891 mg. A troy pound is 480 of those grains, compared to only 437½ of those troy grains in an avoirdupois ounce. Gene Nygaard 06:12, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The United States never did outlaw the troy pound. But it isn't used much any more, rather people usually use thousands and millions of troy ounces. Once in a while you see troy pounds used, as in some documentary last year about salvage operations on some old Spanish shipwreck in the Carribean. Gene Nygaard 06:27, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
NYMEX still denominates gold and silver futures in troy pounds and ounces (and not in avoirdupois). The USGS says that "The basic unit of weight used in dealing with gold is the troy ounce." [1] I have never seen avoirdupois as the basic unit for gold (though I often see a measure of gold listed primarily by its troy weight, followed by what its equivalent in avoirdupois would be). Show me some of these places where gold in the present day is primarily measured in avoirdupois. Andrew Levine 07:17, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What's the point? The ounces in this article aren't what's being questioned, and there are quite a few of them. Remember, the Brits—and much of the Commonwealth, not sure whether Canada and Australia, big players in the metals field outlawed the pound, but I know that Australia also has a specific exemption to its metrication laws for the troy ounce, and Canada's metrication laws may be weak enough that no exemption for the troy ounce is necessary, but it is still used there—only outlawed the troy pound, not its ounce subdivision. Whenever Britannica (which isn't British and hasn't been for nearly a century) gives gold weights in ounces, they are troy ounces, too. Goo look for the weight of the sarcaphagus lid on King Tut's tomb. If you find it listed as 243 pounds (give or take a couple), those are avoirdupois pounds. You only very rarely see it as 290-odd pounds. Gene Nygaard 10:33, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Response Thanks to everyone who offered very useful information on this topic. I see that the article has been updated. Thanks again! NorCalHistory 12:13, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Continuing objection. Stating worth $x at a specific price is just like stating a mass, because ($y/oz troy)(z oz t) = $x, or z oz troy = $x/($y/oz troy). But stating "worth $x at 2006 prices" is even worse, because of the ambiguity of the price ranges over the year 2006, and we cannot even use a yearly average at some commodities market for that value because the year isn't done. Gene Nygaard 15:01, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Figuring out what 273 troy pounds of gold in 1850 would be worth today is an imprecise exercise, but it isn't going to be off by much. In 1850 a troy oz. of gold was worth $20 (c.f. the $20 "double eagle" gold piece which contained 1.125 troy oz. of 22k gold). So 273 troy lbs. * 12 troy oz. per lb. = 3,276 oz. or $65,520 in 1850 $. Various long-term inflation calculators are available and they indicate that this would currently be worth about $1.5 million. If you had 3,276 oz. of gold today, you could sell it on the London Exchange for about $1.8 million. So a conservative estimate of the value is "in excess of $1.5 million in 2006 dollars.--Paul 21:07, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The thing is, we don't know that it was 3276 troy ounces. It might well have been in the neighborhood of 3980 troy ounces (273 avoirdupois pounds). And there is another possibility not yet mentioned here that is probably just as likely—that the reason the pounds were not identified in that book is that some author or editor was oblivious to the distinctions, and that some number originally 4368 troy ounces (or somewhere between 4360 and 4376) was divided by 16 to get these "pounds", of the fictional 16-troy-ounce variety. So that is quite a variation, with the larger amounts 34% higher than the smaller ones. Gene Nygaard 12:24, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
In any event, the current wording "in excess of $1.5 million in 2005 dollars" is correct under any scenario that has been discussed.--Paul 02:37, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal Gene - given that the only information we have is that "273 pounds" of gold were removed in the early Gold Rush by this one party of miners from this one location, would you be kind enough to give us an approximate modern-day dollar valuation of that amount, as you see best? Understanding that we need only an approximation to give modern readers a sense of scale (and do not need precision), you can describe your methodology and include whatever caveats you think are appropriate in a footnote (for example, "worth approximately $1.5 - $2 million in Dec. 2006 values"). Your educated assistance on this point would be appreciated! NorCalHistory 17:16, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This particular detail seems unecessary to the quality of the article. I have further rewritten to make it even more non-specific. If there are other instances where precision seems to be detracting from the sense of scale, it might be best to just rewrite them; you can also bring them to my attention and I will rewrite them.--DaveOinSF 20:24, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, I noticed a few places which lacked sources, for which I placed a {{cn}} next to them. In addition, the lede seems a bit awkward looking. Hurricanehink (talk) 23:52, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • ResponseBe glad to supply the sources. Regarding the "awkward" comment - do mean visually? That is typically a function of a reader's monitor size/resolution. Could you provide a bit more detail, and is that visual a reason for your present opinion? NorCalHistory 01:37, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Fixed Each "citation needed" has been addressed, and some additional material added to the lead. Do these changes meet your concerns? NorCalHistory 07:51, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Factually, it looks good. Support, now. What I was referring to before was the placement of the images. Might it be better to start with the larger image and have the history or California template below it? Hurricanehink (talk) 22:14, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I agree - the History template should be secondary to the actual article image. Sandy (Talk) 01:26, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose: The lead really needs to be fixed. The lead is more of a history than a brief summary. When this is fixed, I will give it my support.-Hairchrm 03:48, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Thank you for your observation, I did make a change in the lead. I am trying to understand your observation a little more clearly. Wikipedia:Lead section suggests that the lead should "stand on its own as a concise version of the article." This article describes a historical event. A "concise version" of a description of a historical event may very well read like a history - it's not clear to me that result is to be avoided. In general, major points in the article should be summarized in the lead. As I read the article and the lead, major points in the article appear to be summarized in the lead. I would be interested if you would be kind enough to provide a bit more information; for example, is there is a major item in the article that you feel is not adequately summarized in the lead? If so, please suggest that missing information, and perhaps an editor will be able to include it. Thank you again, and I look forward to hearing more information. NorCalHistory 12:41, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/California_Gold_Rush&oldid=1138456875"