Talk:Pillar Point Bluff

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Size[edit]

County says it is 220 acres, but I've only been able to track the purchase of 161, leaving 59 acres unaccounted for, which could be attributable to multiple scenarios. This is bothering me, but I'm working on it. Viriditas (talk) 23:35, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

POST still says it is 161 acres as of 2022.[1] Viriditas (talk) 22:29, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
So, it looks like it adds up to 220 based on 11 parcels in total.[2] Viriditas (talk) 22:35, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Just as a follow-up: I have no way of linking or associating the 11 parcels to their approximate size, but I did play around with the area tool on Google Earth to see how the 220 acres fits given the general size of the park, and it was almost an exact match. Viriditas (talk) 19:03, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Did you know nomination[edit]

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Bruxton talk 22:30, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(
)
  • ... that the San Gregorio Fault comes ashore in only two places in Northern California, one of which is between Pillar Point Bluff and Moss Beach? Source: Simpson, Gary D.; Thompson, Stephen C.; Noller, J. Stratton; Lettis, William R. (October 1997). "The Northern San Gregorio Fault Zone: Evidence for the Timing of Late Holocene Earthquakes near Seal Cove, California". Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America. 87 (5): 1158–1170. doi:10.1785/BSSA0870051158.

Created by Viriditas (talk). Self-nominated at 10:58, 13 November 2023 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/Pillar Point Bluff; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.[reply]

  • I shall review this. Note: It's a longish article, and I may review it in several stages. If the review appears unfinished, please be patient. Thank you. Storye book (talk) 17:34, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]


General: Article is new enough and long enough
Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
QPQ: Done.

Overall: A very satisfying article: clear, concise and to the point - and elegantly-written. Thank you. Points:

  • The Geography section has very few sources, although it ought to be possible to reference maps, and passing comments in the sources that are already in the article. Please try to find more sources for that section?
  • In the Recreation section, a lot of the points are not referenced. Part of it asks the reader to look at the map which you have kindly provided, but people reading the article on their phone will not have the map within sight all the time. It would help to use citations to link the map to all relevant points.
  • (This point does not affect DYK): I am puzzled that you do not mention sea otter?
  • (This point does not affect DYK): Richard Henry Dana (1840), Two Years Before the Mast gives some good first-hand descriptions of the coast between San Diego and San Francisco, including a bay in which the try-pots were in use for the whaling industry. But I'm not sure whether any of those descriptions were of the exact location of this site. Worth checking out, if you haven't already?
  • Earwig finds various similar proper names and common phrases; none are plagiaristic.
  • The full hook citation is offline, taken in good faith.

Summary: All is well. apart from two sections which look odd without enough sources. Can we repeat any of the existing sources in those sections? If you can resolve that, then I can pass this nom. Storye book (talk) 18:12, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Storye book: Thanks for the review. I'm working on addressing the issues now. I hope to have it finished by today, tomorrow at the latest. I will ping you when I'm done. Viriditas (talk) 19:54, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sea otters: Regarding sea otters, you may have confused Pillar Point with Pigeon Point, which is approximately 25 miles south of Pillar Point. It is true that a sea otter was spotted north of that area, near Tunitas Creek Beach, in late 2022, but that's the only official report north of Pigeon Point in the last eight years. As you are likely aware, the sea otters were hunted close to extinction in the SFBA up until the early 20th century. There might be historic reports of sea otters off of Pillar Point in the literature, but their range is far south of that area today. There is major chatter about the FWS starting a reintroduction program which could conceivably bring them back to Pillar Point in the future. Viriditas (talk) 20:06, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Two Years Before the Mast: Thanks for the tip about Dana's book. I just spent five minutes looking through it but didn't see anything about the shore whaling at Pillar Point or anything else. The timeline seems right, so I wonder if the shore whaling station at Pillar Point was simply too small to be of any interest. I will continue to look. However, it does occur to me that considering that the book was actually written sometime between 1834-1836, it may be the case that this was far too early. My understanding is that the shore whaling station at Pillar Point didn't become prominent until 1850, but I'm going from memory, so that could be wrong. Viriditas (talk) 20:24, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note, I did find something interesting that is somewhat related. In 2014, a draft comment to the GGNRA general management plan recommended performing an archaeological investigation into the historical whaling station at Pillar Point. I don't think this has ever been done. Viriditas (talk) 21:47, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for the information, much appreciated. I guess the otters/try-pots are best discussed elsewhere, since not relevant to DYK, I'll answer on your talk page. Storye book (talk) 10:06, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • My pleasure. I'm still working on the article. I will let you know when I'm done. Viriditas (talk)
  • @Storye book: I think I got most of the things you asked for, but I'm open to making more changes or adding more hooks, so if you see some other areas for improvement or potential hooks that you prefer, let me know. Viriditas (talk) 00:38, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you, Viriditas, for updating the article with citations, and for the other improvements. it looks fine, now. I am happy with all the ALTs. The mention of the fault would surely attract attention, since people are jumpy about earthquakes. Storye book (talk) 10:04, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Good to go, with ALT 0, 1 or 2.Storye book (talk) 10:04, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Viriditas and Storye book: to comply with WP:DYKHFC we need the hook cited no later than the end of sentence in the article. Right now it looks like a citation end of paragraph. Bruxton (talk) 22:05, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Bruxton: Fixed. Thanks. Viriditas (talk) 22:24, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review[edit]

Passed. Bruxton (talk) 23:06, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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.

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Pillar Point Bluff/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

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


Review[edit]

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

Images[edit]

  • Green tickY 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)[reply]
    I think it would be better if you did the trim. Fragments are allowed in captions. Bruxton (talk) 16:10, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Done. Let me know if you want me to change it again. Viriditas (talk) 19:34, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lead[edit]

  • Green tickY 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)[reply]

Etymology[edit]

  • Green tickY 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)[reply]
    @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)[reply]
    @Viriditas: Yes not much clarity from this source either. Bruxton (talk) 22:53, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Spelling etc.[edit]

  • Green tickY 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)[reply]
  • Green tickY Lead "the Montara Mountain" I think we can omit "the"
    Done. Viriditas (talk) 19:47, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Green tickY 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,[3] as does the surfing literature.[4] I realize this can be confusing. Viriditas (talk) 20:26, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Green tickY 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)[reply]
  • Green tickY 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)[reply]
  • Green tickY 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)[reply]
  • Green tickY History "commercial agriculture began to take off" take off sounds colloquial
    Agreed. Will fix. Viriditas (talk) 10:08, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    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)[reply]
  • Green tickY 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)[reply]
  • Green tickY Preservation efforts "Congress" should be linked is it US Congress?
    Done. Viriditas (talk) 21:04, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Green tickY 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)[reply]
  • Green tickY Threats "oaxlis" is it misspelled? Should it be "oxalis"?
    Done. Good catch! Viriditas (talk) 21:30, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Green tickY 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)[reply]
  • Green tickY "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)[reply]
  • Green tickY 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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
  • Green tickY 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)[reply]
    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)[reply]

Citations[edit]

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

Chart[edit]

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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Pillar_Point_Bluff&oldid=1209721576"