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

Articles for creation This article was reviewed by member(s) of WikiProject Articles for creation. The project works to allow users to contribute quality articles and media files to the encyclopedia and track their progress as they are developed. To participate, please visit the project page for more information.Articles for creationWikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creationTemplate:WikiProject Articles for creationAfC articles This article was accepted from this draft on 27 April 2024 by reviewer ToadetteEdit ( talk · contribs). California 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. National Register of Historic Places Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject National Register of Historic Places, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of U.S. historic sites listed on the National Register of Historic Places 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.National Register of Historic PlacesWikipedia:WikiProject National Register of Historic PlacesTemplate:WikiProject National Register of Historic PlacesNational Register of Historic Places articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

The issue about Notablity was covered in this deletion nomination discussion for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/27–29 Fountain Alley. The discussion says: WP:GEOFEAT, which says Artificial geographical features that are officially assigned the status of cultural heritage or national heritage, or of any other protected status on a national level and for which verifiable information beyond simple statistics is available, are presumed to be notable. Being on the NRHP, this passes WP:GEOFEAT. This is a Wikipedia:Stub and should contain enough information for other editors to expand upon it. Greg Henderson ( talk) 17:38, 12 March 2024 (UTC) reply

The user below has a request that an edit be made to Site Number 4 Mnt 85. That user has an actual or apparent conflict of interest. The requested edits backlog is high. Please be very patient. There are currently 172 requests waiting for review. Please read the instructions for the parameters used by this template for accepting and declining them, and review the request below and make the edit if it is well sourced, neutral, and follows other Wikipedia guidelines and policies.

• Under the History section, please update the 2nd paragraph for the sentence:
• "The preliminary results seem ^{according to whom?} to parallel those from CA-MNT-44, featuring components from both the Early and Late periods. Recent acquisition of fiber, cordage materials, wood, flaked stone, shell beads, and feather artifacts from CA-MNT-85 has occurred, originating from a collection amassed by a pot-hunter. The analysis is anticipated to conclude within the year ^timeframe? and is expected to significantly contribute to our understanding of the Esselen Native American people."
• To the following:
  • "According to U.S. Forest Service, the preliminary results seem to parallel those from CA-MNT-44, featuring components from both the Early and Late periods. Recent acquisition of fiber, cordage materials, wood, flaked stone, shell beads, and feather artifacts from CA-MNT-85 has occurred, originating from a collection amassed by a pot-hunter. The analysis was anticipated to conclude in 2002 and was expected to significantly contribute to our understanding of the Esselen Native American people." ^[1]

Greg Henderson ( talk) 15:17, 28 April 2024 (UTC) reply

 Not done: The changes are not supported by neutral, independent, reliable sources. Please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made.  Cowboygilbert - (talk) ♥ 16:26, 30 April 2024 (UTC) reply

 Comment: @ Cowboygilbert: Sorry, I did not make this more clear. I've now added the reliable source. ^[1]

Greg Henderson ( talk) 14:16, 1 May 2024 (UTC) reply

@ Greghenderson2006 You should be able to change the year yourself, but why use the tense as if the analysis hasn't been finished yet? First person pronouns should be avoided in general, also. Recon rabbit 12:32, 19 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Got it. BTW, I can't changed change the year because of being blocked.

• How about we say:
• "According to U.S. Forest Service, recent acquisition of fiber, cordage materials, wood, flaked stone, shell beads, and feather artifacts from CA-MNT-85 has occurred, originating from a collection amassed by a pot-hunter. The analysis is expected to significantly contribute to our understanding of the Esselen Native American people." ^[1]

References

Greg Henderson ( talk) 16:49, 19 July 2024 (UTC) reply

When is it recent in relation to? 2002? Does the following work for this second sentence: "The analysis was expected to significantly contribute to the historical record of the Esselen Native American people." Recon rabbit 17:13, 19 July 2024 (UTC) reply