Talk:San Luis Ranch

California: Southern California Low‑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
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by Southern California task force (assessed as Low-importance).

Find out how to format footnotes here: http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Wikipedia:Citing_sources#How_to_write_them

City voters again rejected the Marketplace Project--why "again"?

Heading--why "political history" rather than history? This timeline goes back only to 2004, but the project was started in 1994. this section has no references Dalidio Ranch Project at the beginning of this section. This section has no references so I cant check to see if its avoided problems of copying vs. paraphrase. The opening sentence of this section and the whole emphasis is not on the marketplace project but only on the overpass issue, which is one aspect of the project

Pros of the Marketplace project. This section is all one incoherent and ununified paragraph. Remember paragraph structure.

Cons: This would take away much of the land allotted to farming in San Luis Obispo. Replacing it with retailers, this would create a void in the amount of land capable of sustaining farming in the county.--these two sentences repeat one another

look at the effect of the Marketplace project on a smaller scale --unclear

the city's judiciary,--look up that word. Perhaps you mean the city's voters or electorate, or alternately you may mean away from government bodies whose job it is to make educated decisions on such land-use issues

he Marketplace Project carries with it the possibility that less agricultural land will shift the farming atmosphere in San Luis Obispo, and hurt many of the local businesses found downtown as well as county-wide.--repeats material that appears earlier in the paragraph.

This section uses the same single source as the previous section. You should cite multiple sources for anything this long.

No transition to the description of Measure J, no references in the section. This whole section sounds like arguments in favor of Measure J or a paraphrase of the proponent's description rather than a neutral description.

Pros and Cons of Measure J sections are generally OK, though will need closer copy editing. The comments about the recent ruling by the judge belong later

General comment: this is a promising beginning, but there's lots to do yet. It makes sense to provide pros and cons of the two ballot measures, but its more important to provide a more complete overall chronology which places those measures in context of the larger story. The actions of the SLO city council and the SLO County Board of Supervisors need also to be covered.

Selection of references seems somewhat arbitrary. Best to separate into primary and secondary sources. Primary would include links to texts of all the measures and the websites of the opposing parties. Secondary sources should begin with general articles providing background in the two primary newspapers--New Times and Tribune--to be followed by articles on specific details and from other sources.

comments March 3

The Dalidio Project was the first initiative to give the residents of San Luis Obispo the ability to decide the fate of agricultural lands. [3]--I dont expect you to know this, but this claim is inaccurate since SLO residents voted on the SOAR Save Open Space and Agland initiative in 2000

In 1994, 3 years prior to Ernie stopping the cultivation of his land, it became publicly known that plans to develop on Ernie Dalidio's property were materializing.--convluted sentence whose import isnt clear--state what happened in 1994

991 Ernie Dalidio proposes--stay in past tense

Judge Roger Picquet overturned approved proposition, claiming that voters did not have the agricultural wisdom to make the decision.[10]--inaccurate statement of grounds of overturning initiative. Get report from SLO tribune or better yet, text of the judgement if its online

prove extremely beneficial --no intensifiers--for good style and neutrality

Account of the Marketplace isnt balanced. Description of the measure itself is pro. Pros is repetitious and over eager. Cons leaves out probably the most persuasive argument against which is that the proposed financing of the overpass was unrealistic. Check the ballot arguments on both sides to get a clearer versions of both sides.

After the Dalidio Marketplace proposal was rejected by the San Luis Obispo City Council,--it was rejected by the voters who overturned the Council approval.

Dalidio Ranch Initiative Measure, Measure J-06--problem here again is that you describe the measure in the words of those who proposed it. This all belongs in pro arguments. You need to find a neutral description.

he addition to the interstate --unclear

hose who reject the Measure J proposal do so with the belief that giving the County electorate the right to decide the future of local and agricultural economy in the city sets a dangerous precedent, as few have the ability to make well-educated decisions regarding the future of San Luis Obispo.--sounds implausible and offers no source

To authors: you've made good progress since last draft on explaining this complex and heated topic. But this still needs substantial revision in places noted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rudolph2007 (talk • contribs) 19:27, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Group Members

Hey guys, just a reminder to cite the primary sources within the text and in the section at the bottom.

March 12 Instructor's comment

The current version moves closer to an accurate and impartial account of this controversy, but it still is a long way from balance and clarity. Later revisions need to be made outside of the classroom framework, and will probably be subject to edits and discussions from people on both sides of the issue.

Descriptions of the project and the chronology offered here, taken as they are from statements by proponents and reporters with certain opinions, sometimes leave out or misconstrue crucial information. The lengthy quotes from the ballot measure booklets need to be condensed and fairly summarized. The facts that the project has changed its definition and name over the years and has been bounced back and forth between city and county jurisdictions and has been subject to two elections will require more time than I have now to assemble into a coherent story. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rudolph2007 (talk • contribs) 18:29, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]