Talk:California

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

California was a good article candidate, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. Once the objections listed below are addressed, the article can be renominated. You may also seek a review of the decision if you feel there was a mistake. Date of review: 2007-03-16

	This article is part of WikiProject California, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to California on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page to join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the importance scale.

	United States Portal This article is within the scope of the United States WikiProject. This project provides a central approach to United States-related subjects on Wikipedia. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards.
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the Project's quality scale. (If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Mexico, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Mexico on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.

California has had a peer review by Wikipedia editors which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.

This article has been selected for Version 0.5 and the next release version of Wikipedia. This Geography article has been rated B-Class on the assessment scale.

A Wikipedian removed California from the good article list. There are suggestions below for improving areas to satisfy the good article criteria. Once the objections are addressed, renominate the article as a good article. If you disagree with the objections, you can seek a review. Removal date: Original Research

Contents 1 Archives 2 As long as we're cleaning up, how about archiving out-dated Discussion topics? 3 FA nomination for California Gold Rush 4 Inaccurate, unsourced population claim 5 Results of major clean-up 6 Mt. Whitney height 7 Sorry for all the edits. . . 8 Placement of former flag in infobox 8.1 Bear Flaggers 9 Phonetic Notation for "California" 10 GA Failed: Much referencing needed 11 Gentle reminder - this is a talkpage for improvement - not a chat forum

[edit] Archives

• Talk:California/archive1 - 2003–2005
• Talk:California/archive2 - Jan. 2006–June 2006
• Talk:California/archive3 - July 2006–November 2006

[edit] As long as we're cleaning up, how about archiving out-dated Discussion topics?

As long as we're cleaning up, how about archiving out-dated Discussion threads? Anyone want to/object to creating an archive for all Discussion topics from, say, Dec. 2005, and earlier? NorCalHistory 05:57, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] FA nomination for California Gold Rush

The California Gold Rush article has been nominated for Featured article status. If you would like to comment on this nomination, please go here to leave your comment. To leave a comment on that page, click the [edit] link to the right of the title California Gold Rush.NorCalHistory 20:45, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Inaccurate, unsourced population claim

The graph of CA population history by year shows a "2006 est" as 37,127,000, which is "9.7%" gain since 2000. I replaced this BS with the 2005 census estimate http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/06000.html which shows its 6.7% growth between 00-05. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.253.88.22 (talk) 05:16, 5 December 2006 (UTC).

[edit] Results of major clean-up

While additional work can still be done, we have concluded a major clean-up - material has been moved to daughter articles, OR, NPOV and (some) un-sourced material has been removed, images adjusted, etc. I am therefore removing the clean-up tag. If you feel that additional clean-up is needed, please feel free to do so, or to re-post the clean-up tag, with specific comments here.

In addition, as a result of the major slimming-down that we've accomplished (from 79 kb when too long tag posted to 48 kb today), I am removing the too long tag. At 48 kb in length, this state's article is shorter than other comparable states' articles (Florida = 68 kb, New Jersey = 102 kb, Texas = 75 kb, New York and Massachusetts = 52 kb), and about the same length as other states (Pennsylvania = 48 kb).

Still to do - citations needed for much of the material. This material may have been posted during a less strict era, and now will benefit from citations. Also, with a wealth of daughter articles, please consider posting detailed or controversial material in the daughter articles, and limiting this article to basic, overview, non-controversial material.

Finally, with this clean-up (and any further clean-up by the end of the year), I hope that this article can regain its GA status. I would suggest re-nomination in another few weeks. NorCalHistory 16:45, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mt. Whitney height

I know that there are more accurate official heights of mountains out there, and Whitney's height has just been changed in the text of the article. Can anyone confirm the new height in the text? and if it's the correct height, then the height listed in the infobox (top right of this article) needs to be corrected/conformed as well. Anyone lend a hand on this? NorCalHistory 21:33, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

This article, Mt. Whitney, from the state parks services states, The elevation at the summit is 14,491' (4417 meters). This was back in 2005. I bet the 14,495' allows for a couple of earthquakes. Number looks good to me. Ronbo76 22:33, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

This was discussed at length before. Archived discussion. Mikemill 08:17, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sorry for all the edits. . .

. . .but my rv key did not seem to work and then I hovered over the wrong version and Murphy's Law showed up. I reverted to the last best version by BlankVerse. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ronbo76 (talk • contribs).

[edit] Placement of former flag in infobox

While I am a fan of the Bear Flag Revolt, the placement of its flag throws off the infobox. I recommend deleting this item. Ronbo76 13:18, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

I wanted to note that California was NEVER controlled by the supposed Bear Flag revolt. While they managed to occupy Sonoma, they never held sway in the south and did not organize a government. Fremont and his men were a small army that called themselves the Bear Flag Republic, nothing more. Attributing California as having ever been a Republic titled the Bear Flag Republic is ignorant, illinformed and typical of wiki-would-be-historians.

True True

Depends on your viewpoint. However, since the California flag was derived from the Bear Flag and incorporated the word Republic, it definitely had sway. Oh, by the way, California like Texas is one of the few states ever to have been a Republic before they became states. Ronbo76 22:25, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Bear Flaggers

I have to say, comparing the Texas organization of revolt and personnel involved with the Bear Flag revolt simply is no comparison...you're talking 30 or so immigrants with no education, having left their US territories with zero assets, immigrating into a society that was soveregn and taking advantage of the Mexican's good nature and kindness, and laying claim to something that was not theirs to begin with.....and laying claim to California? preposterious...no more than a drunken gang of rabble, raising hell like most of the Americans of that era....and Freemont was not much better....anyways, those drunken morons got their butts kicked in the battles in southern California....from my accounts, the so called Bear Flaggers were most of the US casualties and desertions...DonDeigo 19:34, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Phonetic Notation for "California"

I'm wondering about the phonetic notation for the state's name, specifically the ɔ. Research on the topic shows, as does the Wikipedia article on the Great Vowel Shift, that the vowel ɔ has largely been deleted from English usage, particularly on the West Coast of the U.S. Thus, native Californians would not pronounce their state name as [kæ.lɪ.ˈfɔɹ.njə], but rather as [kæ.lɪ.ˈfoɹ.njə], or perhaps [kæ.lɪ.ˈfoʊɹ.njə], depending on how narrow a transcription you'd like. I suggest that the phonetic transcription at the beginning of the article be modified to one of these alternate forms.--Imagineertobe 04:58, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] GA Failed: Much referencing needed

This is an excellently broad and well written article, and meets almost all requirements as spelled out in WP:WIAGA. Unfortunately, the referencing of the article is woefully lacking for a good article. If it were a small problem, I would consider a 1-week hold, but I am doubtful the work to bring this article up to the standards spelled out in WP:ATT, WP:CITE and WP:WIAGA could be completed in that time. To summarize the standard of referencing that is spelled out in those policies and guidelines, each assertion of fact should be referenced directly to the webpage or print media where it appears. The pages I have mentioned above talk about several methods of doing this, including the use of "inline" references via footnotes, Harvard references, or a hybrid thereof, as shown well by articles such as Cricket World Cup, a recent Main Page featured article. When the referencing can be brought up to snuff, please feel free to renominate this article for Good status. If it passes Good Article review, it should be ready then for a Featured nomination as well. Good luck, and I look forward to seeing the necessary improvements. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 07:26, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Gentle reminder - this is a talkpage for improvement - not a chat forum

Comments should be directed towards improving this article and the basis for today's revert. Ronbo76 17:55, 27 March 2007 (UTC)