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)
 * 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.-- RightCow LeftCoast ( 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)
 * 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.-- RightCow LeftCoast ( 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)
 * 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.-- RightCow LeftCoast ( 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.-- RightCow LeftCoast ( 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.-- RightCow LeftCoast ( Moo ) 07:40, 21 February 2020 (UTC)