# Talk:Rancho San Francisco

I am glad to report that this article nomination for good article status has been promoted. This is how the article, as of January 14, 2008, compares against the  six good article criteria:

1. Well written?: Check
2. Factually accurate?: Check
3. Broad in coverage?: Check
4. Neutral point of view?: Check
5. Article stability? Check
6. Images?: Check
A good article. The prose is a tiny bit sketchy in one sentence, but doesn't seem to be anything major. I shall pass this article. Good work.  If you feel that this review is in error, feel free to take it to Good article reassessment. Thank you to all of the editors who worked hard to bring it to this status, and congratulations. Rudget. 21:57, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

No mention in Wikipedias arfticle on Gold being discovered in California(Northern California) Also, didnt the mission fathers of the San Gabriel Mission pan for gold in the San Gabriel Mountains as well? Long before the "discovery" of Gold in Northern California/Thanks!PINEAPPLEMAN (talk) 20:48, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Do you mean in the California Gold Rush article? Well, this wasn't really part of the Gold Rush, so that's probably why it's not mentioned there. howcheng  {chat} 03:34, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

1. gold was found along the Colorado River earlier so this is just limited to Southern California although the source may say first in Cal; we now better know.
2 The name by which groups are called essentially us what they identify themselves as people so Tataviam Indians is like saying people people. Tribe/band/astencia/etc just gets too complicated for many so leave that alone unless a group of indigenous people call themselves directly a tribe/band/etc.
3. ==Los Angeles area gold find== or some other area identification would best id the find instead of just gold especially as gold had been found un California earlier.
4. Francisco Lopez's is not sufficient evidence to say that he was seeking out gold and he knowing mineralogy is not sufficient as well as then any one can claim that finding gold was what they were doing when gold was found when in fact they just find it by accidental action.
5. Was the evidence of an earlier gold find of Felix's time or is that a more recent find for us today? If it is evidence we now have that is not sufficient to say that gold was what Felix was searching out.
6. The extent to who knew outside of Alta California and the Mexican nation of the 1842 gold find seem to be very limited even when considering Sutter's knowledge since he remained within the Mexican territory and the gold 1848 gold find did not result in a rush until 1849.
7. The Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo endorsed legitimate land titles held by the ceded land's owners not that those that inhabited former Mexican lands could keep them. Of course the US process was more stringent that what the Mexican government seem to adhere its claimants to absolute land title.
8. Remember that the floods did destroy but it also interrupted how people could carry on and provide for themselves so the money and resources needed to do this could come from the land holder's chief asset--the land especially when the animals and crops were damaged or destroyed, the amount available for trade decreased and the prices increase.
By 1936, it was documented greatly the presence of oil in California so Atholl McBean really found oil not discovered it, especially if there was reason enough to establish the Philadelphia and California Petroleum Company years earlier.66.74.176.59 (talk) 21:16, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

@UpdateNerd: you requested a citation to support that it was actually after the Battle of Providencia that Sutter and Bidwell were captured. I don't have anything that specifically states that, but this article establishes that both were present at the battle and Sutter's diary says that he was captured after the battle of Cahuenga (this 1906 biography of Bidwell says he was likewise imprisoned). Meanwhile, Bidwell's account says that he was visiting the mining operations of one Baptiste Ruelle, not RSF, although this article by Santa Clarita Valley historian Arthur Perkins claims that Bidwell was mistaken about who found them and that he actually was at RSF. This is backed up by this article which states that the find was well-known, but people were confused about when it was found and who did it. So I hope that's sufficient. —howcheng  {chat} 21:41, 10 April 2019 (UTC)