Knowledge Base Wiki

	Gorman, California was a Geography and places good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones Date Process Result December 21, 2008 Good article nominee Not listed

This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

California: Los Angeles Low‑importance 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 articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by Los Angeles area task force (assessed as Low-importance). Cities This article is within the scope of WikiProject Cities, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of cities, towns and various other settlements 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.CitiesWikipedia:WikiProject CitiesTemplate:WikiProject CitiesWikiProject Cities articles

Hey, GeorgeLouis; I took a look at Gorman. I think it's a great start for an article, especially for an unincorporated community. I think this is going to work out well with some diligence. In my honest opinion, I do not believe it is far from a promotion in the quality assessment department.

Here are my observations and suggestions:

• I think one of the things that I noted immediately was that there were no sections on Geography or Demographics nor an infobox, which I have seen on many small community articles. I know that most of said articles were bot-created in circa 2006 by Ram-Man; I will try to help you look for ways to acquire the geography data, although the US Census Bureau website might hold the keys to the Demographics section.

• Is Gorman Joint School District composed only of Gorman Elementary School?

• I believe that pictures are meant to represent the sections they are located in and clarify the article's text with a visual aid. So, maybe you could when the creation of the Geography section comes around, you could add a paragraph about the wildflowers in the settlement and set the picture there. Same goes for the Frontage road picture, which you could set in a Transportation subsection.

• If you can, try to find information that bridges the gaps in the History section; I can see said gaps between 1858 to around 1877 (The tidbit about Gorman Sr.'s death discounted), from 1901 to 1919, from 1923 to 1977, and from 1977 to 2005. Also, some information seems kind of trivial and irrelevant; for example, do people really need to know how many children Oscar Ralphs and Mary MacKenzie had? If they played a notable role in the nature of the settlement, then the article should say so.

• I think that the Communications section should be merged with any oncoming geography section, and the information should also be put incorporated into an oncoming infobox.

• Lastly, if possible, new sections could be added. Take a look at the United States city guidelines for some ideas.

I appreciate the request. Cooperation in an environment such as Wikipedia is an absolute must. If you have any questions or comments, feel free to comment on the talk page notes I have written; I've watchlisted this page just in case.

Thanks and cheers, --Starstriker7(^{Dime algo}_{or see my works}) 17:48, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your look-see. Yes, there is still much to be done with this Article, and I do have some additional information I can put in.

1. I can add something on Geography. As for Demographics (or as I prefer, Population), there are no individual Census statistics unless I go to the block or tract level, which would be Original Research. Gorman is lumped with Lebec, California by the Census people. I may be able to find something printed elsewhere.

2. The lack of an Infobox does not bother me. Most of them just repeat what is in the Article anyway. Also, they are replete with jargon like CDP. If anybody wants to add one, though, I won't cry about it.

3. The idea of a Transportation section is also do-able.

4. There is only one school, yes. I will make that clearer.

5. Keep checking back, can you? This Article will be updated from time to time. Also I have some more stuff I'd like you to look at.

Sincerely, GeorgeLouis (talk) 21:55, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Sure, I'd be happy to help wherever I can. We'll keep in close contact.

• Cheers, --Starstriker7(^{Dime algo}_{or see my works}) 00:46, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This looks great. I suggest adding Template:Infobox Settlement. See Marina del Rey, California for an example of one in use. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 02:20, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your kind comment; I appreciate it. But I have to say that I don't like infoboxes. What good are they? They just repeat info that is already in the article, and they are replete with jargon. If I had my way, they would be forbidden. I wonder whom I can complain to about them. Sincerely, and in fairly advanced dudgeon right now, your friend, GeorgeLouis (talk) 05:40, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I understand and agree to some extent. However they do consolidate materials and make them easy to find. Right now, using my skin and browser, the map and images are all over the place. That's actually what made me think of the infobox, which has places for pictures and maps. That's just an aesthetic issue. The basic article is great. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 05:47, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I added one, feel free to revert, but when you have one line sections about the zip and area code the infobox clears it all out of the way. Also since wikipedia also includes almanac style information, all those numbers make sense to include in these instances. The other comment I have is I would is to remove the {{cquote}} lines, they don't add enough to the text to be put in their own standout boxes, and I would incorporate them into the text where possible, as this article already has a few images and the cquotes add a graphical flourish where they aren't really needed. -Optigan13 (talk) 06:53, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the operative principle in that page cited by Will Beback is that "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia incorporating elements of general encyclopedias, specialized encyclopedias, and almanacs." I wouldn't object so much if (1) the infoboxes did not use so darned much Jargon and (2) if they were easy to edit or to remove information therefrom. Frankly, I do not even know where the infoboxes are garaged. Sincerely, GeorgeLouis (talk) 17:52, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I know that a problem that I ran into when I Lincolnshire, Illinois peer reviewed was that I did not use citation templates, like {{Cite web}}, to format articles and give all necessary information about the sources. If you are planning on nominating this for GA, you might run into a problem there; that's why I formatted the IMDb citation as I did.

Just wanted to give you the heads up.

Thanks, --Starstriker7(^{Dime algo}_{or see my works}) 21:29, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the pointer to that page with all the citation templates on it. I had not seen it before. Sincerely, GeorgeLouis (talk) 17:56, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Take your pick: Left lane in the 1960 Psycho movie, go to http://www.moviemistakes.com/film1024?textsearch=Gorman. Right lane, go to http://www.filmsite.org/psyc2.html. In amusement, GeorgeLouis (talk) 20:41, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it depends. Why are we choosing the "lane" in the first place? What are you planning to cite? --Starstriker7(^{Dime algo}_{or see my works}) 02:55, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not planning to use it at all. Just thought it was an interesting conflict. GeorgeLouis (talk) 05:40, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lol, okay. I definitely go right lane. --Starstriker7(^{Dime algo}_{or see my works}) 22:35, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(1) Roux has made a nice change by putting the pull-quotes on the right side of the page, but there seems to be a stray comma in the pull quote which reads "Lloyd Ralphs, commenting on the first gas station built on the Ridge Route, in 1923," For the life of me, I cannot get rid of it. (2) If there is no firm rule against centering the captions under photos, I would prefer that they be centered. If there is such a rule, kindly point me to it. Sincerely GeorgeLouis (talk) 04:23, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

re:2) You shouldn't for force your layout, see WP:MOS#Keep markup simple; if you want to change it globally goto common.css; if you want all images to be centered when viewing pages add

.thumbcaption{text-align:center;}

to your monobook.css. You shouldn't force the size of images it overrides user preferences, see MOS:IMAGE. — Dispenser 14:17, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the references, Dispenser. I will leave it up to you and others to make the layout as drab as in most other WP articles. Sincerely, your friend, GeorgeLouis (talk) 21:38, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm thinking of reviewing this article. Haven't made up my mind yet, but I thought I'd let you know that if I did, the one thing I would really insist on is a decent map. If you don't know a source for one, you can create one that's usable in Wikipedia by going to www.openstreetmap.org -- it even shows Gorman!. Regards, Looie496 (talk) 05:38, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good for you. Since nobody "owns" this article, and since you "really insist" upon having a map, perhaps you could insert one yourself? That way you would get what you want. Sincerely, GeorgeLouis (talk) 07:34, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

He just has trouble finding it and was considering if other people would as well.

I think the given map is sufficient if you eyeball it, though. --Starstriker7(^{Dime algo}_{or see my works}) 17:20, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the assessment of this article to B-class is in serious error, and have reassessed it back to my original assessment at Start-class. What we have here isn't an encyclopedia article. It's an indiscriminate collection of information and the beginnings of an article. There's also a serious WP:NPOV issue in the education section with the large and unnecessary focus on the "Threats to the district's existence" subsection. Seriously, this much focus is not needed here -- one to three simple sentences covering the issue in a fair and balanced way will suffice.

There's not much more to say here. The article's organization is poor. I'd start off by moving some sections around -- start with history, then geography, and demographics. Is there anything resembling economic activity here. That might be important.

See WP:LEAD for tips on improving the lead section.

Hope that helps improve the article. Dr. Cash (talk) 04:24, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please be as bit more explicit about the NPOV. Kindly give some guidance.

Drive-by tagging is strongly discouraged. The editor who adds the tag must address the issues on the talk page, pointing to specific issues that are actionable within the content policies, namely Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons. Simply being of the opinion that a page is not neutral is not sufficient to justify the addition of the tag. Tags should be added as a last resort.

Sincerely, your friend, GeorgeLouis (talk) 21:43, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Gorman, 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/20100123044247/http://www.lasd.org/stations/for1/scv/index.html to http://www.lasd.org/stations/for1/scv/index.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100203005402/http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/traffops/saferesr/trafdata/2007all/r005-6i.htm to http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/traffops/saferesr/trafdata/2007all/r005-6i.htm

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 10:24, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]