Talk:California gold rush/Archive 1

message: In the article it says that Sutter found the first gold on 24 January 1848, and that immigrants arrived from China seeking gold nine days later.  It seems that either the date or the reason for the immigration is wrong here; or was it a coincidence? --iMb~Meow 11:35, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It's a coincidence. News of the gold find didn't reach San Francisco until March. --Dhartung | Talk 16:44, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Removed. Also major re-arrangement for clarity. Maury 13:11, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Timeline? 

message: Anyone interested in editing this article will likely find it interesting to check the Peer Review discussion page (or see infobox, above) before making any edits to this article.  The recent additions/changes are the result of Peer Review suggestions made in that process. Please click the words "A request has been made" at the top of this page.NorCalHistory 18:45, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Additional information/changes per peer review 

message: 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 (chit chat) 03:26, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Image suggestion 

message: 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 (chit chat) 03:30, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Steamships 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Excellent improvements 

message: Many thanks to everyone who contributed suggestions and editorial comments during the recent  peer review of this article.  The peer review has just closed and is available for your  reading.  
Following up on the suggestions in that peer review, I would like to suggest that this article be submitted for good article or featured article status.  Responses please!  NorCalHistory 10:21, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Thanks for many fine peer review suggestions - Good Article/Featured Article submission? 

message: The following is a quote from Wikipedia:Citing_sources
:"Notes" section
:Technically, footnotes appear at the bottom of a page; endnotes appear at the end of a chapter or book. Since Wikipedia articles may be considered to consist of one long page, or of no pages at all, Wikipedia footnotes appear at the end of an article, but are nevertheless called footnotes.
:Recommended section names to use for footnotes in Wikipedia:
:    * ==Notes== or ==Footnotes==
:    * ==Notes and references== section: Used if there is no separate section with general references, and if all sources of the general content of the article are covered by the footnotes, but see the note about this below.
: Maintaining a separate "References" section in addition to "Notes"
:It is helpful when footnotes are used that a References section also be maintained, in which the sources that were used are listed in alphabetical order. With articles that have lots of footnotes, it can become hard to see after a while exactly which sources have been used, particularly when the footnotes also contain explanatory text. A References section, which contains only citations, helps readers to see at a glance the quality of the references used.
:Further reading/external links
:An ==External links== or ==Further reading== section is placed at the end of an article after the References section, and offers books, articles, and links to websites related to the topic that might be of interest to the reader, but which have not been used as sources for the article. Although this section has traditionally been called "external links," editors are increasingly calling it "further reading," because the references section may also contain external links, and the further-reading section may contain items that are not online.
(emphasis added)
The same information appears at WP:LAYOUT - namely that the Further Reading (or Bibliography) section is intended for sources not used as sources for the article.  If you agree that those directions are correct, Rjensen, would you be kind enough to undo the mixing of the source and non-source material within the "Bibliography" section - which I would suggest is better named
"Further Reading" since that does appear to be the more descriptive title.
Also, it appears that we lost the "Notes" header and section after "See Also" and before "References."NorCalHistory 11:21, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  References/Further Reading, etc. 

message: The Gold Rush is one of a handful of defining moments for California.  As historian Kevin Starr said, the Gold Rush really set the DNA of the state, and put in motion attitudes and dynamics which continue to this day.  Also, the quality, IMHO, is FA status.NorCalHistory 05:20, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I suggest then that the article be subjected to the standard FA process, and would be happy to nominate it for the same.--Lord Kinbote 06:37, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Until the FAC process has been completed, the article can only be listed as an "A" class article. Gentgeen 07:21, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Definitely Top -  

message: Thanks, Paul for your edits.  I've noticed that the ordinary style seems to be not to include citations in the Introduction section, but rather to include in the main text the citations for the facts and quotes which appear in the Introduction.  I think that one of the peer reviewers had the same assessment.  
The cite for the "world-class" quote in the Introduction is at Note 84 in the main text.  If you think that the citation should also appear in the Introduction section, I suppose that you could add the citation information as a new footnote in the Introduction as well (see complete Hill, 1999 information at Note 79).  Thanks again!NorCalHistory 18:10, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks again, Paul - the standard format they want is that the first reference to a work contain all the relevant information.  I've conformed the new notes to the standard format.NorCalHistory 16:57, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cite for quote 

message: Paul - here's the comment during the peer review (now archived) which led to the change in the title of the first section -
:"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. . . . Lagringa 07:48, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Now that you remind me, I remember that comment, but I disagree.  When you look at the article now, that section is the history of the gold rush.  History is not a monolithic thing that can't be subdivided.  History is a series of events over time, and each of those events consists of a number of more detailed events happening over time, and so on.  The big history is a mountain of individual histories.  It is silly to argue that you shouldn't talk about the history of a historical event.--Paul 08:14, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't have a strong feeling one way or the other.  I guess we'll find out what others think!  Thanks for your careful vigilance  over the months, by the way!NorCalHistory 14:06, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As this article is about an event, I agree with the comment above that "History" could be considered redundant. Perhaps "Background" would be a better choice? Or "Overview"?--Lord Kinbote 20:33, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

text: I'm OK with any of the above!NorCalHistory 21:07, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Title of first section