Talk:Smuggler's Gulch/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Kingsif (talk · contribs) 21:30, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

Hi, I'm Kingsif, and I'll be doing this review. This is an automated message that helps keep the bot updating the nominated article's talkpage working and allows me to say hi. Feel free to reach out and, if you think the review has gone well, I have some open GA nominations that you could (but are under no obligation to) look at. Kingsif (talk) 21:30, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

Good Article review progress box

Criteria: 1a. prose () 1b. MoS () 2a. ref layout () 2b. cites WP:RS () 2c. no WP:OR () 2d. no WP:CV () 3a. broadness () 3b. focus () 4. neutral () 5. stable () 6a. free or tagged images () 6b. pics relevant () Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked are unassessed

• I have to agree with David Eppstein in that I assumed the article would be on the whole area and found info on Mexico lacking (even with the new lead distinction). There does not need to be two articles on the same place from a US and Mexican perspective. Unless there's some different history that's not clear. Not to mention, with the lead phrasing, it feels awkward and forced to try and separate it. I'll continue with the review, but I feel the scope is something that should be thought about - feel free to improve it as-is and prove me wrong, though.
• The images are suitable and licensed
  • geography one could have some square indicating where to look
• Infobox looks fine, except for the out of scope map - we don't need all of North America pictured, the pin covers half of California
• Sources reliable - copyvio tool down so I will do a spot check soon
• Looks stable enough
• Lead is on the long side compared to article length, but should be okay
• The sewage flow mention doesn't read as relevant enough for the lead, even though it is - it should be rephrased

Flora and fauna

• Sufficient, well-written.
• Does seem a little short, though - is there nothing more, or do the sources have no more info?

Geography

• wikilink Baja California (maybe the other locations, too)
• could add something after "San Ysidro Port of Entry" to give context to what this is - seems obvious, but even so, explanation and clarification won't hurt here
• The gulch is about 0.5-mile-wide (0.80 km) should be 0.5 miles wide - I know it's a convert template, but they can be used for both noun and adjectival forms
• width of the gulch seems like its more pertinent to geography than its relation to the port of entry, and should come before this
• a lot of this is about the water, could this be its own paragraph as separate to the physical geographical attributes?

History

• Note [a] suggests, in my understanding, that there's more information on the Kumeyaay that might be relevant
• Note [b] is redundant and also not directly relevant to the sentence it is attached to - its refs could be moved to the mention in the lead (or to an etymology section, perhaps, or somewhere else if the article is expanded to include more on Mexico)
• I'm not sure if note [c] is needed?

Barrier construction

• The sentence In 2002, a Border Patrol agent died when her vehicle toppled down the gulch's steep slopes. is kind of just thrown into the middle of the development - it's chronological, but really it's a side note on the project (unless it had an effect on development that isn't mentioned) and belongs closer to the end, or to be incorporated better
  • The sentence At the base of the filled portion of the gulch are two 10-by-10-foot (3 m × 3 m) culverts to allow water flow also feels awkward where it is.
  • Both of the above could go at the end of the second paragraph, with appropriate incorporation.
• Something needs to be fixed with In 2005, while there had been existed a fence
• And at The 3.5-mile-long (5.6 km) road, lighting, and triple barrier, includes the fill within Smuggler's Gulch - what includes the fill? The road, lighting, barrier, or all?

Overall

•  On hold good writing, but needs some thought about the scope and other minor things

I have begun, but have not completed my modifications of the article based on the review above. I will give a full response to the review within the next couple days/weeks as time allows as my employment has not been negatively impacted by COVID-19.--RightCowLeftCoast (Moo) 23:47, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

I have completed the first round of modifications addressing the issues raised above.

• The sources which I found for Smuggler's Gulch were primarily about the US side of the border only, with it receiving significant coverage and being notable per WP:NGEO. While per WP:NGEO the Mexican side of the canyon is also notable, given my language limitations, I did not find many articles in Spanish about Smuggler's Gulch. Surely they exist, but they fall outside of the scope of the article, as written. If this article must be about the entire canyon, both sides of the international border, than this is clearly a quick fail as the Mexican side of the canyon is not well covered.
• Cropped satellite image
• The map has been changed to the continental United States.
• Working about sewage flow has been modified
• As for Flora and Fauna, this information is what was found in reliable sources, mostly from environmental reports relating to government work in or near the gulch. Is there a want to include all species, not just endangered and threatened species, that live within the geographic feature?
• Made modifications to geography section requested
• Added more context about the 2002 death
• Modified wording within the Barrier Construction section, and included historic information of what sources call the "primary fence".

Please let me know what else needs to be addressed in order for this article to pass GAR.--RightCowLeftCoast (Moo) 07:35, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

• The edits make it much clearer this is about part of the US, so I feel it's alright on that front, now. Other expansions are detailed and well written. If there's nothing else interesting on the flora and fauna, that's good too. Addition of scientific names is nice, thanks. I'm skeptical on the use of the panorama image, but it doesn't take away from the article. Looks good. Kingsif (talk) 14:58, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

Oh, as for CopyVio, Earwig found the highest rating at "Violation Unlikely 24.8% confidence" with most being pronouns.--RightCowLeftCoast (Moo) 02:06, 3 April 2020 (UTC)