Talk:History of rail transportation in California

Delisted GA

This article did not go through the current GA nomination process. Looking at the article as is, it fails on criteria 2b of the GA quality standards. Although references are provided, the citation of sources is essential for verifiability. Most Good Articles use inline citations. I would recommend that this be fixed, to reexamine the article against the GA quality standards, and to submit the article through the nomination process. --RelHistBuff 13:00, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Removal of discussion

Firstly, I must apologize as I did not put up the delist template properly when I delisted the article last month. However, I found that the comments I put above were edited out and replaced with a blank talk page! This is not proper Wikipedia etiquette. I have restored the comment from the history and added the delist template.

Secondly, the article was relisted as a Good Article without going through the proper GA nomination process. This violates the rule for reviewing “You cannot choose an article you've significantly contributed to.” I ask that you please respect the GA status and process and resubmit the article properly. RelHistBuff 10:04, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

• I've re-promoted the article based on the latest changes. Mdhennessey 21:23, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Recent edits

Folks - I hope you don't mind if I do a bit of editing - adding some more refs, cleaning up a few things (e.g., Oregon was admitted as a state in 1859, and Nevada in 1864, so California wasn't entirely "isolated" from all other states before the RR was built in 1869). NorCalHistory 02:42, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

• You've done a great job! Bravo.

Image copyright problem with Image:Crate label for Hewes' Transcontinental Brand El Modena California ca 1930.jpg

The image Image:Crate label for Hewes' Transcontinental Brand El Modena California ca 1930.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
• That this article is linked to from the image description page.

The following images also have this problem:

• Image:Super Chief ad.jpg

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --05:02, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Criticism of Corruption Section

This criticism was originally posted by User:70.137.180.222 in the article and is manually moved here by me.

Frankly, this entire extended article on California railroad history is weak in the extreme. This section, allegedly about corruption and scandal, is probably the worst subsection of the lot. In addition to numerous mistakes regarding the general subject of railroad land-grands, and especially the Mussel Slough incident, the piece generally suffers from fatal oversimplification. Like the rest of the extended discussion of the state and its railroads, the flawed analysis results from limited notes and bibliography largely confined to older and very general and non-scholarly writings.

--Kinglag (talk) 22:54, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Expansion of the Today section

Such entities as Amtrak California, BART, the Los Angeles metro, light rail, and other younger developments in rail transportation in California need to be explored more thoroughly. I have thus placed an {{expand}} template on that last section. 204.52.215.107 (talk) 23:36, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

• I can understand creating a "Today" section, but since a lot of 20th century history is covered by the specific topic like agriculture and oil, why is a separate 20th century section needed apart from the Today and the industry-specific discussions? Racepacket (talk) 10:44, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
  • You are both right. Note that when 204.52.215.107's comment was made, the article was still called rail transport in California. 204.52.215.107 is correct in stating that the article is skewed and only covers the 19th century. A lot of modern history (such as that listed above) needs to be added. On the other hand, a new article, rail transport in California (that currently redirect to this article) needs to be created. Such an article would discuss the current mainline passenger and freight systems, rapid transit and light rail systems, policy, future plans and also a summary of the history section (and probably some other stuff). But again, please feel free to add the history of BART, Amtrak etc. Arsenikk ^(talk) 12:46, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

GA Reassessment

This discussion is transcluded from Talk:Rail transport in California/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the reassessment.

This article does not meet the GA criteria. While sufficiently well-written and referenced with in-line citations, it fails criteria 3a by only covering mainline rail from 1855 to 1910. A single paragraph is devoted to current. The current article should be split out in a history sub-article, and expanded to the double to include the post-1910 history. In addition, a section should be made about current lines, current operations, passenger services, freight services, urban rail (rapid transit, streetcars and light rail). Also, the lead should be about three to four times the current length. I am therefore delisting the article. At best, the current prose should be about a quarter of the article's prose. A complete rewrite is needed, and with a complete rewrite, the prose should be quality-assured in a new GA review. If the article at a later date meets the criteria, please renominate it. Arsenikk ^(talk) 09:32, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:History of rail transportation in California/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

Was removed from the GA list because the article didn't go through the proper nomination process and the article lacks inline references. Shouldn't take too much to add inlines and renominate it... Slambo (Speak) 14:36, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Substituted at 18:21, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on History of rail transportation in California. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100419103447/http://www.nctimes.com/news/local/sdcounty/article_0755e088-1717-5314-a144-899490be488c.html to http://www.nctimes.com/news/local/sdcounty/article_0755e088-1717-5314-a144-899490be488c.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:42, 5 November 2017 (UTC)