Talk:Pillar Point Bluff/GA1

GA Review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

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

Reviewer: Bruxton (talk · contribs) 01:04, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

Review

• I am looking forward to reviewing this article. Bruxton (talk) 01:04, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

Images

• Y One small concern is the length of the image captions. I think per MOS:CAPTION we should consider trimming.

  That’s fine. Would you like to trim it to your preferred length? Viriditas (talk) 10:00, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

  I think it would be better if you did the trim. Fragments are allowed in captions. Bruxton (talk) 16:10, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

  Done. Let me know if you want me to change it again. Viriditas (talk) 19:34, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

Lead

• Y The lead claims "large parcels from 2004 to 2008" but the body says "From 2004 to 2015" can we fix this or am I missing where it is in the body?

• Going only from memory at the moment, I believe that is correct—the large parcels were acquired at that early stage, while the subsequent parcels were comparably quite small in the latter stage of acquisition and purchase. I will take a look at this tomorrow and see if I can adjust it if need be. Viriditas (talk) 10:02, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

Etymology

• Y I am wondering if we need a section for this or at least a sentence. I for one would like to know how the place got its name. Can it be found in the Gudde, Erwin Gustav source? I see a mention of the Pillar Point Air Force Station.

  I believe the history section discusses this. I will take a look tomorrow to see if anything else needs to be done. Viriditas (talk) 10:04, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

  @Bruxton: The material is in the second paragraph of the "History" section. The only thing missing is this ancillary historical footnote (see my very last comment in the thread), which I could add as a footnote to the article. I just never got around to it because it was so trivial, however, revisiting this now, I think it might be somewhat relevant. The thing is, I would prefer better sourcing. The relevant factoid is that "Pillar Point was once called 'Miramontas Point'" by the Coast Guard. Viriditas (talk) 20:08, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

  @Viriditas: Yes not much clarity from this source either. Bruxton (talk) 22:53, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

Spelling etc.

• Y Lead "ADA accessible" I think this needs a hyphen - not sure though so what do you think?

  I'm not sure. Half the sources use the hyphen, half don't. I will ask on the linguistics refdesk. They are usually pretty good with this kind of thing. Viriditas (talk) 20:16, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

• Y Lead "the Montara Mountain" I think we can omit "the"

  Done. Viriditas (talk) 19:47, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

• Y Geography "Pacific Ocean and Mavericks surf break" should this be "Maverick's"?

  Historically, yes, the dog the break is named after was called Maverick, so you would think it would be "Maverick's" surf break, but officially it is spelled "Mavericks". I do note that some sources use "Maverick's" but I think that's incorrect. In addition to the state of California, the official competition also uses "Mavericks" without the apostrophe,[1] as does the surfing literature.[2] I realize this can be confusing. Viriditas (talk) 20:26, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

• Y Geography "Its boundaries lie from Bernal Avenue in the north" to me the first part of the sentence should be rewritten

  What do you recommend? Do you mean something like, "It is bounded by Bernal Avenue in the north" instead? Or something else entirely? Viriditas (talk) 20:58, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

• Y History "a great deal of flats" consider replacing with "many flats"

  I hear you, as it does sound strange, but that's a direct quote from the diaries of Juan Crespí in 1769, as cited by Nick Neely in Alta California (2019). Neely says that he's using Alan K. Brown's translation from A Description of Distant Roads: Original Journals of the First Expedition into California, 1769-1770 (2001). Reviewers say it is the definitive version (or translation). Should I add additional info explaining the translation? Viriditas (talk) 20:38, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

• Y History "The Mexican secularization act of 1833" should the entire title be capitalized?

  No strong feelings on this, but every reliable source on the subject capitalizes the title, but for some strange reason that I can't figure out, only Wikipedia doesn't in terms of article naming conventions. So I went with the sources. No objection to changing it, but it's odd that Wikipedia differs from everyone else on this. Could it be Wikipedia house style for titles? Viriditas (talk) 20:56, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

• Y History "commercial agriculture began to take off" take off sounds colloquial

  Agreed. Will fix. Viriditas (talk) 10:08, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

  Done. Changed to "commercial agriculture began to emerge as a viable industry". If you want me to change it again, let me know. Viriditas (talk) 21:39, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

• Y Park establishment "beginning in the later part" I think it should be "latter"

  No objection to changing it, but I believe the consensus is that later and latter are both acceptable in this context. No strong preference either way. Viriditas (talk) 21:00, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

• Y Preservation efforts "Congress" should be linked is it US Congress?

  Done. Viriditas (talk) 21:04, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

• Y Wildlife "molluscs" I believe it is misspelled

  Mollusc vs. mollusk. Both are correct. See also molluscs. Not sure which to prefer or use. The talk page says "American english uses 'mollusk' whereas the rest of the world uses 'mollusc'". If that's true, then I think we should favor the dominant spelling when it comes to scientific topics in spite of regional English variations. In other words, if most scientific publications prefer "mollusc", we should it. Not sure, however, what the answer is here. Viriditas (talk) 21:27, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

• Y Threats "oaxlis" is it misspelled? Should it be "oxalis"?

  Done. Good catch! Viriditas (talk) 21:30, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

• Y Threats Should we connect the two separated dog related items?

  Can you clarify? Are you referring to the distance between the first sentence in the first paragraph and the third paragraph? If so, that's intentional. The first sentence summarizes all three paragraphs and provides an introduction. I thought this was clear, but if it confused you, let me know. Otherwise, if you mean something else entirely, do tell. Viriditas (talk) 21:36, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

• Y "ADA accessible" I think should be hyphenated - not sure though so what do you think?

  No strong feelings, but I opened a ref desk discussion on it for help. Viriditas (talk) 21:37, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

• Y Trail map "Pillar Point Bluff park" should park be capitalized as part of the name?

  I wasn’t sure; usage appears inconsistent. I will take another look. Viriditas (talk) 10:08, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

  I'm leaning towards "no" as the park name is "Pillar Point Bluff", but I do notice some sources using "Pillar Point Bluff Park" as shorthand for "Pillar Point Bluff County Park". There's also internal working documents that refer to it as "Pillar Point Bluff Park" but that's more of a map title convention. Not sure what the answer is here. Viriditas (talk) 21:50, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

• Y Trail map "southern California Coastal Trail" Should souther be capitalized?

  I don't believe so, but I will take another look. Viriditas (talk) 10:08, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

  Done. Compass direction should be lowercase, however, because the context was confusing due its proximity in the sentence next to California, which could easily confuse the reader with "Southern California", which appears to have happened here, I have moved it away from there and to the end so that it now reads "and the California Coastal Trail in the south". Problem solved? Viriditas (talk) 21:55, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

Citations

• Y Will continue to citations when first items are checked. Earwig does not reveal issues.
• Y Spot checked citations in each section and they supported the text. Bruxton (talk) 22:54, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

Chart

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	Yes
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	Yes
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	Yes
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).	Yes
	2c. it contains no original research.	Yes
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.	Yes
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	Yes
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	Yes
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	Yes
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	Yes
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	Yes
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	Yes
	7. Overall assessment.	Well written and sourced.

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.