Talk:Rancho San Francisco

Rancho San Francisco has been listed as one of the History good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
January 14, 2008	Good article nominee	Listed

A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on April 21, 2007.

The text of the entry was: Did you know ...that the first documented discovery of gold in California was at Rancho San Francisco in 1842, six years before the California Gold Rush?

Facts from this article were featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on March 9, 2011, March 9, 2016, March 9, 2018, and March 9, 2021.

California: Southern California Mid‑importance

	California portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject California, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of California on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CaliforniaWikipedia:WikiProject CaliforniaTemplate:WikiProject CaliforniaCalifornia
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by Southern California task force (assessed as Mid-importance).
	This article is a selected article on the California Portal.

Mexico Low‑importance

	Mexico portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Mexico, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Mexico on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MexicoWikipedia:WikiProject MexicoTemplate:WikiProject MexicoMexico
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Successful good article nomination

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)[reply]

A Good article! Why in Wikipedia Gold Discovered in California No Mention of Sr.Lopezs Discovery?

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Edit explanation

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)[reply]

Battle of Providencia

@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)[reply]