Talk:South Bay Salt Works/GA2

GA Review[edit]

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

Reviewer: Cygnis insignis (talk · contribs) 16:18, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I read this through a couple of times, the topic grabbed my attention, and thought there is a good article available, given some close attention from someone who has never heard of it. I made a couple of minor tweaks to the lead, revert if they are not agreed to be an improvement. I'll give some actionable comments over the next little while, here is a start

Please add the systematic names of organisms, in parenthesis if a well known common name is available. Some links are already made to biology articles, just a matter of displaying those in the main text. 16:18, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

I have made the edit requested.--RightCowLeftCoast (Moo) 02:57, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Secondly, maybe lastly, I notice that an earlier review has become reäctivated. This can be deleted if that is going ahead. cygnis insignis 16:23, 31 October 2018 (UTC) Ping @CorporateM: to alert you to what happened here. 16:26, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Is there an update to this review? AIRcorn (talk) 22:35, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note to Cygnis insignis: there is no chance of an over three-year-old GA review being reactivated per GAN rules; this is the only active review, and it is yours, unless you wish to withdraw. Otherwise, it needs your input going forward; RightCowLeftCoast has posted a response to your previous concerns. Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 19:56, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
BlueMoonset, okay, thanks. It wasn't clear to me what the situation was. I'll proceed with the review if that suits all concerned. cygnis insignis 00:42, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Starting at the bottom. Are the text documents in external links not able to be incorporated into the article? Likewise, tthe further reading link.
The Salt nav box doesn't have a link to this article, and is itself an odd assemblage of 'salt topics'. I'm averse to navboxen, but this is questionable inclusion.
There may be categories for conservation and restoration projects, but they seem in order.
Access dates in refs are not needed for dated documents, it is used for dynamic sources of information that may change.
Linking organisms by a loose term and the group, Ephydridae|brine flies (Ephydridae) is one way of doing it. but consider just putting the link under the classification so the reader knows what to expect.
Do the sources especially note any other birds, or just the endangered ones. Perhaps the most common of the 90 odd species, or unusual occurrences, although this may be beyond the scope of the article the impact of salt works on local populations is likely.
"microbial make up different substantially from those of a similar salt " I assume differ for 'different' was meant. Can the difference be outlined, and why is the comparison to a Spanish pond (I'll read the link later).
Do we know why bromine was being extracted during WW2.
The right of access and bike path facts are not clear to me.
I would recommend getting this looked at by a copyeditor, there are some sentences that need recasting. There are things I could change around, punctuation concerns and so on, if I were not reviewing article. My general advice is to be wary of the use of semicolons.
- The links in the external link all fall under WP:ELMAYBE or WP:ELYES, as thy are relevant but may not be from reliable sources or are not utilized in the article. I have removed the Salt navbox. The linking to the normal name, and scientific name was made at the request of the last GA reviwer, if memory serves me; do you want me to undo that? The sources about the birds, were specific about the endangered species. Connection of the bike path, is that it the Coronado Belt Line had a right of way through the salt works; the Belt Line went defunct in the mid 20th century; it was later converted into a bike path in the early 21st century, even though it was designated historic (as stated in the sources in the article). This impacted the South Bay Salt Works, as old rail was placed on the Salt Works property, as can be seen here, and here. No mention of why Bromine extraction ended after World War 2; just that it did. The semi-colon use is to avoid WP:SYNTH, and for like content to remain together and utilize souces relevant to that section of that article.--RightCowLeftCoast (Moo) 21:54, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - I missed your reply on this, sincere apologies for that. My inbox is full and I can't help feeling someone else may be better in providing a review on this topic. I would understand if you are annoyed by my laxity, in an on and off again review, but I'm guessing it is closer to GA. cygnis insignis 15:41, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Second opinion[edit]

I will provide a second opinion. If Cygnis comes back they can take or leave my comments. If they don't get time to complete the review or agree it can be taken as the main review.

Records date its origin as being before 1872,[1] while a 1965 report by the State of California and a 2015 notice by the City of Imperial Beach state that the area has been used as a salt works as early as the 1860s "while" implies a contradiction, which this isn't.
It has been in operation since the 1870s, when the city first experienced the effects of the Industrial Revolution. This adds a bit to the confusion of the previous sentences. Is there a difference between operation and origin? Are we talking about different salt works?
In 1915, a narrow-gauge railway was installed, and crossed over standard-gauge rail of the San Diego and Arizona Railway; the narrow-gauge railway was dismantled in the 1970s, except for where it crossed over standard-gauge rail, preserving the only instance of such an occurrence in the United States. I am not up with railways and gauges so don't get the significance of crossing over standard-gauge rail?
Joined by other salt producers in the state, the salt works was the second largest salt producer in California. I feel this needs some more clarification. "Joined by other salt producers" seems vague and is probably a big enough deal to get more details.
On the West Coast of the United States, only San Francisco Bay and San Diego Bay have the natural conditions such that salt extraction from sea salt is feasible. Is "such that" right. It sounds odd to me, but I am not sure.
I also find the overuse of semi-colons distracting. I don't think they are grammatically incorrect though and acceptable for a Good Article.
Short article, but seems broad enough.
No copyvio issues that I could find.

@RightCowLeftCoast and Cygnis insignis: AIRcorn (talk) 23:27, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Aircorn: I have made a change to the first paragraph to better sync the wording here.

To reduce the confusion, I removed the fourth sentence.

Standard-gauge railroad, has been the international standard since around 1845, and became the standard in the United States in the 1860s. Therefore, it is uncommon to find to find level junction of two different gauges. As the source says, it is the only level junction which is narrow and standard in the entire United States that survives.

I have modified the language to make the information more clear. In 1958, the company which operated the subject of the article, also leased a salt production operation which began in 1934 by the Irvine Company; the lease began in 1950 and lasted until 1969; however, specifics about those salt works are outside of the scope of this article. That said the total production from the South Bay Salt Works, and the Newport Beach salt production, is what lead to the statistic being highlighted in the article.

I have attempted to reword the content to make it more clear, and added a quote from the source. The quote should make clear what I am trying to convey.

If there are additional suggests for article modification to improve quality, please let me know.--RightCowLeftCoast (Moo) 01:31, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I am confident it meets the GA criteria. If Cygnis insignis doesn't respond in a week, ping or leave me a talk page message and I will pass it. AIRcorn (talk) 19:53, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Aircorn, Cygnis insignis has made several hundred edits since being pinged here on March 21; I think we can safely say they are not going to respond. Indeed, their post here on February 19 indicated to me they were hoping someone else would take over. Please close this. Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 13:47, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah I noticed they were commenting on a potential ARB case. I think it is safe to assume they have abandoned this review. I am going to pass it now. Congratulations RightCowLeftCoast. AIRcorn (talk) 21:24, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]