Talk:Fairfield Osborn Preserve

Fairfield Osborn Preserve was a good article, but it was removed from the list as it no longer met the good article criteria at the time. There are suggestions below for improving the article. If you can improve it, please do; it may then be renominated . Review: April 20, 2007.

A fact from Fairfield Osborn Preserve appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 17 November 2006. The text of the entry was as follows: Did you know... that the Fairfield Osborn Preserve is home to a great variety of fauna including one of the world's largest salamanders? A record of the entry may be seen at Wikipedia:Recent additions/2006/November.

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

California: San Francisco Bay Area / State University 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 San Francisco Bay Area task force (assessed as Mid-importance). This article is supported by California State University task force (assessed as Mid-importance). This article is a selected article on the California Portal. It is requested a map or maps be included in this article to improve its quality. Protected areas Low‑importance This article is part of WikiProject Protected areas, a WikiProject related to national parks and other protected natural or ecological areas worldwide.Protected areasWikipedia:WikiProject Protected areasTemplate:WikiProject Protected areasProtected areas articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. It is requested that a map be included in this article to improve its quality.

This preserve was probably named for

• should solve redlink for "block fault"
  • This link is now blue-linked to the proper article Anlace 23:29, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• articulate the naming issue
  • An edit has been added to clarify the naming Anlace 03:18, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• elim some of the redundant links
  • Have started on this. Will finish in the next few days and have some additional detail and references to add to the article. Anlace 03:18, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Covalent 20:33, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Covalent, do you want to put this article on hold? I was all set to fail it for my own admittedly highly subjective reference standards, but if you want to review this article yourself i'll not do anything. Homestarmy 22:02, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I passed this before I noticed this talk page entry as the artilce was not on hold on WP:GAC. I think with the changes already made, it's GA. My suggestions are to: add more web refs so people can see the refs, and add more detail--esp history where something had to have happened btwn 1890-1950 and practical aspects.Rlevse 17:20, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I delisted this as a good article because of my concerns about the geology information. This article cited a source that quoted a specific rate of right-lateral slip along the Rodgers Creek Fault, but gave the right-lateral slip rate as an uplift. The geology is a poor conception of the geology of the area and simply cannot be written as it is. Soils are not geology, they are soil, this section should have had the correct geology, and been titled geology and soils, not geology, with soils thrown in. The soil section is much too specific for what a county soil survey actually gives, soil surveys should be reported with knowledge of how the information was obtained and how it relates to the actual soils found in the area. I would like all technical references for this article to be checked for accuracy, and all articles that use these sources or this description of the geolgy of this area to be verified and reworded. The level of the geology appears to be original research, rather than an accurate report from geological papers of the area. KP Botany 04:01, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above editor also removed the following sourced material (Wetman 04:12, 20 April 2007 (UTC)):[reply]

Until 12 million years ago, this site was part of the

tectonic

movement.

Yes, I removed all of the questionable and inaccurate information from this article, as the geology is incorrectly worded, not sourced, and the sourced part of the information does not agree with the citation attached to it. Not just for Good Articles, but all articles in Wikipedia must be accurate. Wetman, please use edit summaries in your edits, and thanks for posting the block that I removed in its entirety, as I should have done. KP Botany 13:36, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think the article provides enough information on the location of the Preserve. Sonoma Mountain covers a lot of territory. What are the Preserve's coordinates? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stepheng3 (talk • contribs) 01:26, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The WP:COIRESPONSE . stjohn.wendy (talk · contribs) has been paid by Sonoma State University on behalf of SSU Center for Environmental Inquiry. Insert relevant links, such as relevant affiliations, disclosures, article drafts written by paid editors, or diffs showing paid contributions being added to articles.

.

The original Osborn page on the SSU website has been updated to include a Copyleft notification: https://web.sonoma.edu/cei/osborn/about.html

Stjohn.wendy (talk) 23:47, 10 July 2019 (UTC)stjohn.wendy[reply]