Talk:Smuggler's Gulch

Missing description of Mexican side

I'm here because of the GA nomination, but to me the topic of this article either seems either inaccurately described or seriously incomplete, so I thought it would be better to ask for clarification here rather than as a review. Is this purely about the mouth of the canyon, the unpopulated part of it used for smuggling? If so, the article should make that limitation on what it covers more clear. Or, is this about the full geographic feature, Cañón del Matadero, a much longer canyon within Tijuana that, judging from Google maps terrain view, extends well into TJ, is fed by several other canyons, has major roads running through it, at least two churches, and a bridge marked as a historic landmark? That area was in the news recently for severe flooding. But judging from the article all we see of the Mexican side is just an empty part of it near the border, nothing about its development, what kind of neighborhoods fill it, etc. We don't even get any information about the name of the canyon except as a subtitle of an infobox, nothing about the neighborhoods Cañón del Matadero Este and Cañón del Matadero within it, nothing about the feeder canyons Cañón Miramar, Cañón de las Palmeras, Cañón Azteca, etc. So if it is to be judged by the standards of GA, it seems to fall well short of WP:GACR #3, completeness. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:10, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

@David Eppstein: The article is primarily about the United States portion of the geographic feature, which is commonly known as Smuggler's Gulch. The portion of the geographic feature south of the international frontier has a different common name, which is stated in the lead section and the infobox. Surely there are reliable sources in Spanish that can be used to create an article about those neighborhood(s) of Tijuana which are within the portion of the geographic feature south of the international frontier (and unfortunately WikiProject Tijuana appears to be inactive, and my Spanish understanding is sub-level 1 in babble scale); but those parts of the geographic feature are outside of the scope of this article.--RightCowLeftCoast (Moo) 05:37, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

Well, then the article needs to make clear in its text that it is talking only about the US side, and it needs to not say in its lead sentence that it is about Cañón del Matadero or Valle Montezuma (names for the Spanish side). And maybe it should point out that the US side is a small part of a much larger geographic feature and that it is not about the geographic feature as a whole. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:41, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

@David Eppstein: Including the name meets MOS:FORLANG. Its scope is clearly defined in the article

It is located on the Mexico–United States border, between Tijuana, Baja California, and San Diego, California.

It is verified in the last paragraph in the article utilizing this reference. The "between" being Federal and County land. The article does acknowledge it is part of several larger geographic features, but the part which is verified to be described as Smuggler's Gulch is not the portion south of the international frontier.--RightCowLeftCoast (Moo) 05:58, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

Its scope is clearly not defined in the article, if you are saying now that it is only the part of the canyon on the US side of the border but the article itself places it more symmetrically "on" the border. It is not reasonable to interpret "on the border" as really meaning "the part of it on one arbitrarily-chosen and never-stated side of the border, but not on the other side of the same border". —David Eppstein (talk) 06:08, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

@David Eppstein: I am not saying now, as the above editor appears to assert, it has always been. This article is not about the larger geographic feature which includes the neighborhoods of Tijuana south of the international border, as well as the gulch north of and on the international border. It is as described above in the quote above. It is what reliable sources verify it to be, not something I chose. I am not arbitrarily creating a definition. The article is about a defined geographic area verified by the reliable sources utilized in it.

That the Spanish names are included in the article is to meet an MOS which prescribes that it should be included, but that doesn't change what the reliable sources define the topic of the article to be.--RightCowLeftCoast (Moo) 06:23, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

I understand that you think the article is and has always been about the part of the canyon on the US side of the border. And if that's what the scope of the article is, then fair enough, it doesn't need to be changed. But that scope is not at all clearly expressed in the article itself. There is absolutely nothing in the lead section of the article that says which side of the border is being considered, merely that it is on the border near TJ and SD. From that description, one cannot tell that it is the US side that is intended. And I understand that you think the Spanish names are the correct names for the topic of the article, and therefore should appear as they are in the article, but they are really names for larger features and again the article fails to make that clear. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:36, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

The MOS says that the foreign names, which describe parts of the larger geographical feature, that falls beyond the scope defined by the multiple reliable sources, but which may also apply to how the subject of this article is described in a foreign language, should be included. Perhaps I will try adding a footnote.--RightCowLeftCoast (Moo) 06:54, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

Why is it so difficult to just change the text of the article to say that it is the US part of a canyon rather than saying that it is a canyon, and to say that it is on the US side of the border rather than saying that it is on the border? Why the need for all this rigamarole about extra-textual hatnotes? —David Eppstein (talk) 07:18, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

If there is a more elegant way to describe the scope of the article, I welcome the collaboration.--RightCowLeftCoast (Moo) 07:40, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Smuggler's Gulch/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

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)