Talk:Goat Canyon (Tijuana River Valley)

Milhist?

G'day, I reckon this is pretty marginal for Milhist. Effectively there have been military facilities located in this geographical feature, and I don't think that is enough of a link? Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 12:43, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

OK, I've removed Milhist. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:28, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

@Peacemaker67: Mexican Border Fire Control Station is the primary military facility within this geographic feature, as indicated in this report, and also discussed at the state military history museum website. The military history connection of the geographic feature is clear, even it the article itself isn't primarily about a military facility, the military facility falls within thes cope of this article.

Perhaps a redirect link of Mexican Border Fire Control Station should be created?

@Sturmvogel 66: Thoughts on the matter?--RightCowLeftCoast (Moo) 05:44, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

I'm OK with a MilHist tag since this area until we get something covering all the facilities more directly. A Coast defenses of San Diego article would cover the actual fire-control bunkers, though the other stuff probably aren't notable enough to warrant their own articles.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:00, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Goat Canyon (Tijuana River Valley)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Gog the Mild (talk · contribs) 15:15, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

Hi RightCowLeftCoast, I will pick this one up. I intend to copy edit the article before commencing the assessment proper; let me know if you have any issues with this. Obviously, you are free to revert any edits I might make that you are not happy with. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:15, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

• "which receives water and other runoff" Querying what "other runoff" might be other than water? If you mean 'sewage' it may be better to say so.
• "Numerous sensitive and endangered species" The use of "sensitive" is unclear here. Could you qualify?
• "It remained in the ownership of the Knox Family until at least 1981, but was out of their control due to government control beginning in 1970." I'm not sure how the homestead can be in the family's control until 1981 and be under government control from 1970?

More to follow.

Gog the Mild (talk) 11:37, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

@Gog the Mild: "Other runoff" does include sewage, but given the different sources in the article it also includes "sediment runoff" and "contaminated urban runoff"; should that be stated specifically in the lead?

• Fair enough. And you mention sewage later in the lead.

"Sensitive" species is defined for the context of one of the reliable sources of the article here. So formerly endangered and threatened species, and those species listed below the federal level, by the state, local, or enviromental groups. Should this be included directly in the article, or a note be included? Apparently this is common due to environmental regulation.

• I understand what you are trying to communicate, but I think that many readers will be scratching their heads wondering what a "sensitive species" is. And how it is different to an "endangered" one. I can't find a relevant Wikilink, do you know of one?

So from 1970 until 1981, while the Knox Family retained ownership, control of the property was exercised by the federal government.--RightCowLeftCoast (Moo) 06:42, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

• OK.

• "the United States Army "base end stations" " Why the quote marks?
• "with the creation of an airfield in the late 1920s, known as Border Field" My edit - is it factually correct?
• "In 1981, Goat Canyon was not a significant contributor to the …" Is "not" a typo?
• "for border wastewater projects was zeroed out." An Americanism I think. What does "zeroed out" mean?

Gog the Mild (talk) 16:09, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

I have removed the quotes and replaced it with a wikilink

• OK.

"Border Field: is factual, per this source

• Good.

Not a typo, in the early 1980s the part of Goat Canyon on the Mexican side of the border, was not heavily populated, and thus "not a significant contributor" of sewage.

• OK.

I have modified that sentence to remove "zeroed out"

• Thanks. Clearer now, IMO.

Please let me know if there is anything else I need to do to improve the quality of the article.--RightCowLeftCoast (Moo) 06:42, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

• @RightCowLeftCoast: Just my query above around "sensitive" left. Thanks for the constructive responses. A sound little article. I have no idea why it has been waiting so long. Gog the Mild (talk) 10:52, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

@Gog the Mild: There does not appear to be an article about sensitive species, or an article which includes it significantly as a section of it. Other articles include the terminology but without significant explanation or definition. Therefore, I have included a note regarding the term, please see this diff for that addition to the article.

• That seems a sensible solution.

If there is any other improvements that I need to make, please let me know.--RightCowLeftCoast (Moo) 19:03, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

A solid article, meeting all of the criteria, and interesting too. Happy to promote. Well done. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:07, 18 May 2019 (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