# Talk:Rancho Camulos

I am putting this GA nom on hold for 2 to 7 days, if the main editor(s) think they can address the issues in that time, otherwise I can fail it outright and it can be renominated. This part is up to the editor(s). Let me know here or on my talk page. I am working on a listing of issues right now, it will be posted shortly. Thank you for your patience. IvoShandor 13:09, 13 April 2007 (UTC)


### Issues/notes - GA on hold
Lead: Because this article will need substantial (or at least some) expansion the lead will need to be expanded accordingly, so that it represents a good summary of the new version as well.
Lead should represent a good summary, thus it should be able to stand alone. It isn't clear that any of this place still exists until too far down in the article, consider adding this information to the lead.
In addition, I don't think having the landmark number or NRHP reference number in the intro is necessary.
Broadness: an important GA criteria.
Right now this article fails this criteria.
The only mention of the architecture is in the infobox, seeing as how this was the category it was nominate under for GA perhaps it merits a section discussing this topic.
There is a lot of detail, maybe too much, in the NRHP nomination form comparing Camulos to other adobes that are NHLs like Rancho Guajome. I didn't think it was worth going into, because it's kind of arcane unless you're an architecture buff (which I'm not).
Include at least a paragraph or two, as the article should at least discuss it to cover all "major aspects." IvoShandor 08:01, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
Done.
So how many buildings remain? What happened to ones that are gone? Etc. The article, as is, doesn't give essential information on the nature of the property today.
Added a section about the buildings on the grounds.
Make sure to convert this to prose. Nice expansion though. IvoShandor 08:01, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
Done.
What about the time period from 1968-1994-present? There isn't much information save the bit on 2006 restoration work, nothing from 68-94.
There's not much to say about that time period, but I added what I could. 1968-94 -- nothing happened because the new husband didn't want to work the ranch, so the grounds and buildings were untended. After 94, restoration efforts began, but the Rubels didn't have enough money. Once they got NHL status, they were able to qualify for grants.
Mention whatever is pertinent. IvoShandor 08:01, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
The only mention of its landmark status is in the lead, consider adding a "Significance" section to talk about this topic.
As a sidenote to the above, specific dates for its California and National Historic Landmark statuses would also be helpful.
I couldn't find a date for CHL status, but the NHL date is in the infobox.
Hmm. Is that the NRHP date or the NHL date? They are only the same if the property wasn't listed on the Register when it was designated a National Historic Landmark. This should be specified in text for those of us readers who are historic site consumers. : ) IvoShandor 07:53, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
You're right, the NHL date was in 2001, but I don't have an exact date for it, just when the dedication ceremony was.
February 16, 2000 - designation as an NHL, the NRIS database says it was added to the National Register on November 1, 1996. Just FYI.
Prose: Overall the writing itself was pretty good.
Look for minor copy editing (a few mistakes will be okay, don't worry), an example: his wife Mary remarried Edwin Burger. The way that sentence is worded it makes it sound like she was having a second marriage to Edwin Burger (it implies that Edwin had been married to her once before).
A lot of one sentence paragraphs, combine or delete.
Done.
Word choice: Though I understand that the property is called "Rancho Camulos" this term, "rancho" is still very much a regionalism, IMHO, as a Midwesterner, I did not recognize it and had to look it up (though I was pretty sure I knew the meaning), consider using just "ranch" unless you are referring to the proper title of the location.
Done, but I kind of think there's a difference between a "ranch" (which evokes the American West) and a "rancho" which is specific to California.
Maybe you could just explain the difference the first time you mention "rancho" outside of the proper name? IvoShandor 07:53, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
I don't have any sources for it -- it's just kind of "feel", so I'll leave it as-is.
Is there a wikilink for Helen Hunt Jackson?
Yes, she was linked in the lead, but I linked her again.
Cool. I missed the link in the lead. IvoShandor 07:53, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
Make sure the capitalization of Del Valle/del Valle is consistent throughout.
This one's hard to figure. It's "del Valle" as is the custom for Spanish/French names. I had it capitalized only when it was at the beginning of the sentence. I've also seen it as "Del Valle" when mentioned on its own without a first name, so I did it like that.
Sorry bout that one, I even looked at it twice. : )IvoShandor 07:53, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
Stuff
Stub red links or remove them.
I disagree with this. Red links encourage the creation of new articles. I don't like having one-sentence stubs, which is all about I can do with the information I have right now. The only thing I can say is that I intend to create those articles at a later date.
OK, this is really personal preference. IvoShandor 03:53, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
Citation/Refs
In the 1860s, a drought forced del Valle to sell off much of his land, but Camulos not only survived, but thrived.
Consider citing this or its examples that follow.
Done.
and it was the source of the first commercially grown oranges in Ventura County
This definitely needs a citation.
Done.
Make sure the full dates in the notes are wikilinked.
Done.
Provide ISBN numbers for the book references and notes so that anyone can easily locate the texts.
The only book ref in there is too old to have an ISBN. The other one is in Project Gutenberg, so I just linked there.
OK. IvoShandor 07:53, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
Make sure you read the entire article carefully and assure that all material that is "likely to be challenged" has an inline citation, besides the examples above I saw a couple of other spots that might benefit from use of inlines.
Such as: Ramona, published in 1884, was based in part of some of the experiences that Helen Hunt Jackson had had during her visit to Rancho Camulos in 1882. The book was extremely popular and inspired a great deal of tourism, which happened to coincide with the opening of Southern Pacific railroad lines in Southern California.
Without an inline cite on statements like that, it could be construed as OR in its assertion of popularity and inspiration for tourism.
Hope you don't feel this is too harsh, I am only trying to help make this article the best GA it can be and make sure it meets the criteria. The article will stay on hold for up to 7 days, if you don't feel the above tasks can be accomplished in that time period, let me know on my talk page and I can go ahead and fail it and then you can renominate it. 
If I were to assess this article according to the criteria now I would do so as follows:


### What the review would be now
GA review (see here for criteria)
It is well written.
a (prose):  b (structure):  c (MoS):  d (jargon): 
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references):  b (inline citations):  c (reliable):  d (OR): 
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects):  b (focused): 
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
a (fair representation):  b (all significant views): 
It is stable.

It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic.
a (tagged and captioned):  b (lack of images does not in itself exclude GA):  c (non-free images have fair use rationales): 
Pass/Fail:
a Well written: 
b Factually accurate: 
c Broad in coverage: 
d NPOV: 
e Stable: 
f Images: 
g Overall: 
If the article failed the nomination, the comments below will help in addressing the problems. Once these tasks are accomplished, the article can be resubmitted for consideration.  If you feel that this review is in error, please feel free to take it to a GA review. You can see how I, personally, applied the six criteria above at this link. I sincerely thank you for your work so far.
If your article passed the nomination, congratulations on making Wikipedia all the better. Your contributions are greatly appreciated. If you didn't know there is a groovy user box, {{User Good Articles}}, for those users who have significantly contributed to a good article. The "essay" linked above is also how the criteria are applied to passing articles as well. Thanks again for your hard work.
Review by: IvoShandor

IvoShandor 13:44, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Saw your expansion, kind of listy, just FYI, try to convert to more smooth prose, to meet GA criteria #1. IvoShandor 17:39, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
What do you mean by "listy"? The only section I can think of like that is the history, but I don't see how else to go through the years. Of course the list of buildings is listy because it's a list. howcheng  {chat} 19:45, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
It could easily be converted to prose and be much smoother. Lists cannot satisfy the well written criteria. The history section is fine. IvoShandor 15:54, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
OK, that's done. There are a few more sentences in the history and agriculture sections now too. howcheng  {chat} 17:51, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
This is about to be passed . . . IvoShandor 03:53, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
One note, you still have a really short paragraph in the lead. IvoShandor 03:55, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
Done! howcheng  {chat} 05:43, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
The last thing, I can see, remaining is to add the California Landmark, NHL and NRHP dates and info into a section (probably last) called "Significance," of course you can add any other info to that section, such as its influence on the other ranchos that are NHLs. Hopefully you saw my note above linking to a source for the NHL designation date (the NHL Program database, I also confirmed your NRHP date, above through NRIS, just to make sure. IvoShandor 06:58, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
You might also consider expanding the lead a bit so it represents a thorough summary that could stand alone per WP:LEAD. Besides these two points everything looks really good here. Nice job. I will pass it as soon as those are addressed. IvoShandor 07:04, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
OK, I did what I could. I'm not sure what else to throw in the lead, because I don't want it to be too huge. howcheng  {chat} 18:10, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
The lead seems cool. I would prefer to see the Significance section in prose, as I am sure that would be asserted if you were to try and take this article further. Good work see below.

Color photo scale was added using the coordinates supplied in the article as converted to decimal coordinates. Building appears to be slightly NE of where the Wikimapia crosshairs fall. Ronbo76 17:42, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Actually, the crosshairs are just slightly north of the main adobe, but it's right on the property, so it looks good to me. howcheng  {chat} 18:15, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

I have passed this as a Good Article, per the GA criteria. All of the concerns I expressed were met. Would consider a peer review for further perspective if you plan to take this article further. Good work and keep it up (at DYK too. :) IvoShandor 09:49, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
In case you wanted to know, per the newly revised, but mostly the same now condensed GA criteria, my only fail vote was on "MOS," see above and WP:EMBED:
IvoShandor 10:04, 19 April 2007 (UTC)


### Good article review
GA review (see here for criteria)
It is well written.
a (prose):  b (MoS): 
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references):  b (inline citations):   c (OR): 
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects):  b (focused): 
It follows the neutral point of view policy.

It is stable.

It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic.

Pass/Fail:
a Well written: 
b Factually accurate: 
c Broad in coverage: 
d NPOV: 
e Stable: 
f Images: 
g Overall: 
If the article failed the nomination, the comments below will help in addressing the problems. Once these tasks are accomplished, the article can be resubmitted for consideration.  If you feel that this review is in error, please feel free to take it to a GA review. You can see how I, personally, applied the six criteria above at this link. I sincerely thank you for your work so far.
If your article passed the nomination, congratulations on making Wikipedia all the better. Your contributions are greatly appreciated. If you didn't know there is a groovy user box, {{User Good Articles}}, for those users who have significantly contributed to a good article. The "essay" linked above is also how the criteria are applied to passing articles as well. Thanks again for your hard work.
Review by: IvoShandor

IvoShandor 10:04, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

This discussion is transcluded from Talk:Rancho Camulos/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the reassessment.
Starting GA reassessment as part of the GA Sweeps process. Jezhotwells (talk) 19:55, 21 November 2009 (UTC)


### Checking against GA criteria
GA review (see here for criteria)
It is reasonably well written.
a (prose):  b (MoS): 

It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references):  b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR): 
I fixed two dead links.  However a number of important statemnets are unreferenced, I have tagged them.  All sources appear reliable.
Done. howcheng  {chat} 00:52, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects):  b (focused): 

It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias: 

It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.: 

It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales):  b (appropriate use with suitable captions): 

Overall:
Pass/Fail: 
Some referencing issues to be fixed, on hold for seven days, major contributors and projects will be notified. Jezhotwells (talk) 20:28, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
OK, everything alright now. Keep GA status. Jezhotwells (talk) 01:22, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Rancho Camulos. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080117074820/http://tps.cr.nps.gov:80/nhl/detail.cfm?ResourceId=328688969&ResourceType=Building to http://tps.cr.nps.gov/nhl/detail.cfm?ResourceId=328688969&ResourceType=Building
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091219002729/http://www.ranchocamulos.org:80/rancho_camulos_history.html to http://ranchocamulos.org/rancho_camulos_history.html
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091218100150/http://www.ranchocamulos.org:80/index.html to http://ranchocamulos.org/index.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).
Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:15, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

It has been a while since this article has been reviewed, so I took a look and noticed lots of uncited statements, including entire paragraphs. Should this article go to WP:GAR? Z1720 (talk) 02:35, 6 November 2025 (UTC)