Wikipedia:Peer review/California Gold Rush/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

California Gold Rush[edit]

I would like this article to undergo peer review. It has received careful and substantial attention from a number of editors over an extended period. The topic is one of wide interest.

If I may suggest, with some further careful attention, the article may merit consideration as a Featured Article. I would request that reviewers assess the article and offer edits/comments/suggestions with an eye towards that goal. NorCalHistory 06:54, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]


  • You're missing the peer review tag, but right off, I guarantee you will need some in text citations, footnotes and what not. --User:A mcmurray 10:52, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As I understood the Peer Review tag instructions, the Peer Review tag was to appear at the top of the Discussion page. I do see it there. Here are the directions from wikipedia:peer review:
To add a nomination:
1. Place {{peerreview}} at the top of the article's talk page, creating a peer review notice to notify other editors of the review.
2. Within the notice, click "request has been made" to open a new discussion page.


If I misunderstood the directions, should it be in an additional/different place?
Regarding your comment about text citations and footnotes - footnotes will be easy enough, but I'm not sure what the difference would be with "text citations" - would the text citations appear as footnotes? Finally, the "what not" part! I'm interested to know any more solid suggestions.
Other than the (relatively easily) fixable footnotes and citations, are there other suggestions that you think would improve the article (such as writing style or content)? Thx! NorCalHistory 22:59, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The tag looks fine to me. I've added an example in-line citation/footnote to the article. As for other advice, the lead/head section is too short. It should introduce the subject by summarizing the article. --Paul 23:24, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent suggestion - thank you! I'm going to be adding a graphic about subduction shortly as well. 216.203.62.5 00:33, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • What jumped out at me is that there is a section entitled "History" in an article that is about history! This section is really what the bulk of the article should be. If you start subdividing this section, you will probably discover where the gaps in the information are. The "Geology" section doesn't really belong here. While it's interesting information, the topic is a specific historical period, not the existence of gold in California generally. The section "Recovering the gold" has an awkward name and most of this information can be incorporated within the main section. The development of different technologies was central to how the Gold Rush progressed. Lagringa 07:48, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting observations - thank you! With all due respect, I do think how this specific gold got to these specific places in California is an interesting (and germane) topic. How economically-recoverable gold accumulated in other places in the world would also be interesting topics for those gold rush articles. Your point about renaming the sections, and incorporating the "recovery" section as part of the main narrative makes sense to me. Thank you! NorCalHistory 15:17, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Per peer review suggestion, citations are being added - starting with Bancroft's canonical 1888 text. Additional refs to additional (more modern works) are on their way. NorCalHistory 01:19, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Additional citations and additional information on the negative as well as the positive effects of the Gold Rush have been added. Comments please! NorCalHistory 00:33, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Added new image and made additional copyedits. Any more suggestions to make this a solid FA candidate?NorCalHistory 00:37, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The introduction ought to be longer than one paragraph for an article of this size. The geological history might work better at the start of the article. Referencing is spotty: I'd like to see more for the mining techniques and geology. Perhaps add a section about how California's economy adjusted after the gold rush itself ended. I'd also like to see something about the legal issues involved: gold prospecting claims, bank scrip, etc. A few words about ghost towns would be good. I understand that the largest gold rush fortunes were usually made by the people who sold supplies to prospectors - could we have something more explicit there? There's also the issue of transport: how did the people and supplies reach California, and how did the gold leave? I seem to remember at least one shipwreck of California gold off the East Coast. Also, how did this affect the national economy? Finally, while the far northern counties are discussed, I've seen abandoned mines as far south as the San Bernardino Mountains. Heck, I've even panned a few flakes out of SoCal streams (fun for an afternoon but not productive enough to be worth the effort). I don't think this meets GA standards yet, but keep working. Best wishes, Durova 06:50, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for this potpourri of interesting suggestions. These articles are always a trade-off between throwing in a ton of topics and trying to keep the length to manageable proportions! Each of these suggested topics sounds great, and many of them might even merit their own separate article! I'll start following up on these suggestions.
Any other reactions to Durova's list of possible additional topics to add to this article? Thanks, Durova - great food for thought! NorCalHistory 12:53, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If the article starts to have real length problems you can always go to summary style with daughter articles for the individual topics. One more idea: the California gold rush as cultural myth - both in the sense of novels and films about the gold rush and in terms of metaphoric application of "gold rush" to other situations. Durova 16:54, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, again - A ghost town reference (Shasta, California) has already been added, and your excellent shopping list is out there for comments and article additions.NorCalHistory 00:13, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Per peer review suggestion, added some additional transportation information, including shipwreck info. NorCalHistory 18:26, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

With an eye towards FAC, the lead is too short, not compelling, and doesn't entice the reader in (see WP:LEAD); the organization of the sections doesn't follow WP:LAYOUT; books used as references should have ISBNs; the article needs serious attention to inline citations. Also, shorten your ibids as follows:

  • Starr, Kevin (2005). California: a history. New York: The Modern Library, p. 99.
  • Starr, Kevin (2005), p. 85-86.
  • Starr, Kevin (2005), p. 84-87.

I don't have time to look at them, but make sure all of your images are in the clear in terms of copyright/Fair Use before approaching WP:FAC. In terms of prose, please check for redundancy in the text: there are several good information sources to help you prepare for FAC at the bottom of WP:WIAFA. I haven't read through the entire article, but a text search for "Columbia" tells me the article probably needs work in terms of comprehensiveness. The prose needs some polishing: make sure to get several good copy edits once you've beefed up the prose. Picking a completely random sentence from the middle of the article:

  • To meet the demands of all the new arrivals, ships bearing goods from around the world poured into San Francisco as well - porcelin <---TYPO and silk from China, ale from Scotland.
    • To meet the demands of new arrivals, ships from around the world poured into San Francisco, with goods such as porcelain and silk from China and ale from Scotland.

Good luck !! Sandy 23:10, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Very interesting and useful - a good amount of technical detail to improve the article. I'll certainly take a careful look at the information you've offered. If I may, I might have a follow-up question or two after I've reviewed your suggestions! NorCalHistory 01:24, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding the follow up questions on my talk page, I was referring to the fact that the article is seriously undercited. For example, look at the Gold in California section (not a single cite), and Effects of the Gold Rush, where numerous instances of hard data are not cited. This problem is evident throughout; those are just samples. Also, there's a problem with your References section: examination of Notes shows that the text only relies on five of those sources (Bancroft, Wells, Heizer, and two Starr books). If the remaining References aren't actually used as References, they should be listed as Further reading. I'd like to see you seriously and passionately beef up the text/content before coming to FAC, as there is a rich history to be told about the Gold Rush. Work on compelling and brilliant :-) Should there be more discussion of the Chinese component? Sandy 16:36, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
PS, since I'd like to see you succeed at FAC, don't make the mistake of comparing to an older FA like History of the Yosemite area: it needs to be sent to Featured article review. For an exemplary recent Featured article in the History area, have a look at Daniel Boone. Sandy 16:45, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you again - brilliant and compelling is a tall order! More citations being added regularly, and reference works not yet cited will be moved to a Further reading section.
Per peer review suggestions, additional material has been added regarding transportation and Southern California, and the citations have been added to and re-formatted. Thanks, Sandy, your input is quite useful, and your suggestions will receive careful further attention! NorCalHistory 16:54, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A few more thoughts: A section called "Effects of the Gold Rush" in an article called Gold Rush doesn't fit with WP:MOS. Maybe you want something like "Effects on California" or something else. Also, Gold rush is listed in See also, when it's a basic definition you might want to link into the text, rather than in See also. Please ping me after another month or whatever of work, and I'll have a look before you approach FAC. Sandy 17:05, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sandy's comments in last paragraph also implemented. NorCalHistory 07:49, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Per peer review suggestions, cites added to "Gold in California" section, and "Effects" section. More citations expected.NorCalHistory 21:29, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Per peer review suggestions, added more details regarding Chinese and other non-Americans, by adding a new section entitled "Who were the Forty-Niners." The intent is to add the refs shortly. NorCalHistory 00:08, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Many refs added, and many more could be added. Suggestions/advice needed on how many refs are appropriate! Virtually every phrase could be the subject of multiple footnotes, but I starting to worry about basic readability! Any suggestions how to handle a plethora of potential cites? NorCalHistory 19:39, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Per peer review suggestions, added new material to Intro and Effects sections; trying for a bit of "compelling" and "passionate." NorCalHistory 02:15, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • (copied from article talk page)
Image suggestion
I don't know what previous versions of this article looked like, but I think it would have more visual impact if one of the images could be moved to the top of the article. That "History of CA" box is certainly useful, but its placement at the very top tends to understate the importance of the event. Just a thought. --cholmes75 03:26, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
Steamships
I noticed a mention of the SS Central America in the article. You could also incorporate a mention of the Winfield Scott, which sank off the CA coast in 1853. -- cholmes75 03:30, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
Thank you, very useful suggestions, both - by "the top" you mean next to the intro section. I'll definitely add mention of the Winfield Scott. Thank you! NorCalHistory 04:07, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Per peer review suggestions, new sections on effect on economy, legal rights, how gold and people were transported, plus refs re same. More refs to follow. NorCalHistory 02:32, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Per peer review suggestions, more new material and refs have been added. In addition to the main text, there are now some 88 footnotes, and I'd like to get a reaction to that number of footnotes.NorCalHistory 08:53, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Per peer review suggestions, substantial copyedits to clarify, tighten, and focus. Intent is to begin to approach the outskirts of "compelling and brilliant"! Other editors, please continue to jump in . . . NorCalHistory 08:11, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks to everyone - GA/FA submission?[edit]

Many thanks to everyone who contributed suggestions and editorial comments during the recent peer review of this article.

I would like to repeat here the following comment from the Discussion page of the article:

Excellent improvements
I first read this article in the early stages of peer review. The editors here have done a fine job of improving it. In my opinion you're safely into good article territory and possibly featured article quality. I've recused myself from awarding GA because I participated in peer review, but since that's about to close I recommend you open a good article nomination. Warmly, Durova 23:46, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Following up on this comment, I would like to suggest that this article be submitted for good article or featured article status. Responses please! NorCalHistory 10:33, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Peer_review/California_Gold_Rush/archive1&oldid=1138560226"