Talk:Laguna Canyon

Laguna Canyon has been listed as one of the Geography and places good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
October 3, 2009	Good article nominee	Listed

California: Los Angeles Low‑importance

	California portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject California, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of California on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CaliforniaWikipedia:WikiProject CaliforniaTemplate:WikiProject CaliforniaCalifornia articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	Greater Los Angeles portal This article is supported by Los Angeles area task force (assessed as Low-importance).

Rivers Low‑importance

	Geography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Rivers, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Rivers on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.RiversWikipedia:WikiProject RiversTemplate:WikiProject RiversRiver articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Map needed

It is requested that a map or maps be included in this article to improve its quality.
Wikipedians in Orange County, California may be able to help!

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Laguna Canyon/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

quickfail? No!

For starters, in my view this article is NOT a quick fail... it's got the potential to be a essentially GA as written, or possibly with some work... (that's what the more thorough review needs to determine). Here are the criteria for quick fail (although use of that term is deprecated):

The article completely lacks reliable sources – see Wikipedia:Verifiability.
Nope, this article has plenty of references, and they look solid... LA Times, USGS, Laguna County websites, etc.
The topic is treated in an obviously non-neutral way – see Wikipedia:Neutral point of view.
It's a geography article. Pretty dry, and if there's any non NPOV in there, I'm not seeing it at first pass.
There are cleanup banners that are obviously still valid, including {{cleanup}}, {{wikify}}, {{NPOV}}, {{unreferenced}} or large numbers of {{fact}}, {{clarifyme}}, or similar tags.
Completely free of tags as far as I can see.
The article is or has been the subject of ongoing or recent, unresolved edit wars.
No sign of wars.
The article specifically concerns a rapidly unfolding current event with a definite endpoint.
Nope. It's a geography article

So, no quick fail. Means I have to actually work for the review. :) I have one comment I spotted already, which is I think the images are too small. They're hard-sized to 190px, and common practice, I think, is to use no size at all and let the sw size things... a lot of the canyon context images in the mid-section lose detail. More to come. An enjoyable article to review. ++Lar: t/c 03:27, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed images; will find more sources. Shannon ^talk ^SIGN! 03:59, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Review

GA review (see here for criteria)

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose): b (MoS):
I do have a few suggestions, though:
"in the U.S. state of " - doesn't need to be linked does it? (most people know California is a US State) Also I've been told recently that we should reduce the number of links in the lead paragraph, and move then to the article proper. Not sure what you think of that. (done - S) (agree - ++Lar: t/c 14:55, 3 October 2009 (UTC))[reply]

"Cities of Irvine, Laguna Beach, Laguna Woods and Aliso Viejo" - should these ("Cities", not the city names) be capitalized? If "City of Irvine" rather than "Irvine" is the official name, should each one get their own "City"? I thought normally we omit this construction and go with common names? (the counter example being "City of Industry") Not sure. (done- S) (agree - ++Lar: t/c 14:55, 3 October 2009 (UTC))[reply]

"At the northernmost extreme of the canyon, there is located a small residential community, which adjoins Interstate 405" - this seemed awkward, try reversing the order? "A small residential community, adjoining I 405, is at the northermost extreme of the canyon." ? There are a few other phrasings like that which could stand tightening. (This was fixed by S. - ++Lar: t/c 14:55, 3 October 2009 (UTC))[reply]

"Proceeding back upstream, Little Sycamore Canyon,..." - It may be good to give the reader some idea why you're describing things in this order? I got confused and reread the para before and still didn't see why. (removed -S) (sorted now - ++Lar: t/c 14:55, 3 October 2009 (UTC))[reply]

"County of Orange" - you called it Orange County above, maybe use the same for both places? (removed -S) (sorted now - ++Lar: t/c 14:55, 3 October 2009 (UTC))[reply]

The infobox, tributaries section... all the tributaries are to the right and none to the left? You described a lot more than two tributaries in the narrative, does the Rivers project now suggest listing only majors? (I may need to go fix up Thornapple River in that case...) (done -S) (agree - ++Lar: t/c 14:55, 3 October 2009 (UTC))[reply]

I'm actually planning on redoing the whole geography section. Don't worry; it won't take long. Shannon ^talk _contribs ^sign!_:) 00:58, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That section all flows a lot better now (er, sorry about that pun). ++Lar: t/c 14:55, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The infobox, the discharge and the mouth seem inconsistent. Is discharge the body of water the river empties into? Wouldn't that be the Pacific? I may be confused there. Maybe add a bit more to "Main Beach" to give some geographic context, like what city it's in? (the rewrite sorted this out - ++Lar: t/c 14:55, 3 October 2009 (UTC))[reply]
----> SUMMARY : all these concerns are resolved now ++Lar: t/c 14:55, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
All references show good with the Checklinks tool: tool output My spot checks of citations show appropriate sorts of sources (LA Times, Orange County, state, and US government sites, etc) for the most part, with some blogs and the like but not so much as to be problematic, and the material supported by the cite was found in the cited reference.
A few comments:
"is a partial water gap" - could you clarify what that means?... why is it partial?

Clarification: The creek existed before the mountains became rising, and for a while the canyon was a water gap formed by San Diego Creek to the north. Then eventually San Diego Creek changed course to flow northeast instead of south, and the canyon became a separate watershed. However, there is no evident water divide. I'll put that in the article if I can find a reference. Shannon ^talk ^SIGN! 22:05, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That clears it up. If you can work that excellent explanation into the body of the article that would be great, it makes a lot more sense to me now but the article still just says water gap in the lead. Maybe somewhere in the first part of the geography section?
Now sorted. ++Lar: t/c 14:55, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~"these being the section drained by an unknown tributary of San Diego Creek, " - Is it unknown or just unnamed?~~

Fixed; this is La Cañada Wash. Shannon ^talk ^SIGN! 22:08, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sorted. ++Lar: t/c 01:55, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"El Toro Creek is a channelized creek that as its name suggests, follows El Toro Road." - Which came first, the road or the creek? Who channelized it? Something seems a bit off here, would some sources on the history of settlement help?

The creek is an artificial flood channel; I don't think there was originally a large waterway there. The only thing about El Toro Creek mentioned in the refs is its name and location. I will try to find out more. Shannon ^talk ^SIGN! 22:08, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sorted. But it may be worth noting that it's been channelized, the reword lost that I think. ++Lar: t/c 14:55, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"with the confluence of several drains that create an unnatural year-round flow" - why is this unnatural? Or, what do they drain from? This seems important, since apparently the stream naturally is intermittent ???

The drains come from residential areas in Irvine; I will add info. Shannon ^talk ^SIGN! 18:48, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The rewrite lost this, if it can be worked back in that might be nice. Not a stopper though. ++Lar: t/c 14:55, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~"(Of note is that the skyline of the City of Los Angeles is visible from the ridge on clear days, indicating the height of the ridge.)"~~ - I think that needs a cite, or some work, to avoid it feeling like OR. How high is the ridge there? Maybe just state the height and that the skyline is visible and let the reader draw conclusions about how high things in the way are?

This was a very random comment I added a long time ago; I will add height. Shannon ^talk ^SIGN! 18:48, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sorted. ++Lar: t/c 01:55, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"The gorge also empties into Laguna Canyon Creek, but first also flows into a circular retention basin.[6]" - Is it worth giving info on who built that basin or on what purpose it serves? I was left with a sense that this, and other features as well, ares an interesting mixture of manmade and natural elements, which have influenced the development of the canyon.

Probably the OC Flood Control Division. Will add a reference. Shannon ^talk ^SIGN! 22:05, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Shannon ^talk _contribs ^sign!_:) 00:41, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sorted. ++Lar: t/c 14:55, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"The canyon is one of the last remaining sanctuaries for many plants native to Southern California. " - I think that needs a cite on its own, it's a pretty significant fact... also see below, this might be the sort of thing that should go in the article close/summary section.

"Several years later, two to three thousand gathered to protest the construction of California State Route 73 (which would cross the canyon), but the highway was built eventually.[11]" What were the dates here? Do these dates matter? Were the protests violent?

The references don't say; I will look up some stuff about that later. Shannon ^talk ^SIGN! 22:05, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I asked about "violent" due to the use of the term in the caption. ++Lar: t/c 01:55, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
----> SUMMARY : all these concerns are resolved now ++Lar: t/c 14:55, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
It's a thorough review of this topic, and struck me as the right size for an article, not too large to be unfocused, but comprehensive. With the following exceptions:
"Some of its endangered species include California Gnatcatcher, Cactus Wren, and Orange-throated whiptail." - are there any non endangered species here? Can you discuss the typical wildlife that live here? (cited, of course)

Forgot to expand that section after removing the tag. Will expand. Shannon ^talk ^SIGN! 22:05, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Better now. Could still use more elaboration before it's FA, but this is a GA review... ++Lar: t/c 01:55, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think this got further improved, it's good! ++Lar: t/c 14:55, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"The diversity of the canyon is illustrated in the fact that over one hundred species of plants, most native to California, are found in Laurel and Willow Canyons alone.[8]" - similarly, the paragraph starts out saying this is a chaparral canyon... what are some of the other species? Also is it an exactly 25 year cycle or approximately? (done -S) (agreed ++Lar: t/c 14:55, 3 October 2009 (UTC))[reply]

History section starts with the housing development. What was the history of the canyon prior to the 1990s? (will do) (done -S) (agreed ++Lar: t/c 14:55, 3 October 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Article body ends with "History"... any possibility of a summary that covers overall importance of this canyon in the grander scheme of things? Like the many species that have no other home? Maybe move that part there?
No longer applicable, the article now ends wit "future" and closes nicely. ++Lar: t/c 14:55, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
----> SUMMARY : all these concerns are resolved now ++Lar: t/c 14:55, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
One might quibble that it has a minor environmentalist bias but not so much as to be problematic, and that could be my own bias, so no worries there.
It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.:
Nope, as I said before.
It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
YOU took all the images, it seems. So no worries on licensing :) Some suggestions
The lead image is not actually of the canyon, right? Or is it? Maybe a map might be a good choice here if one can be done to show the canyon extent?

I'll make a map. Shannon ^talk _contribs ^sign!_:) 21:05, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Map looks good and adds a lot. Sorted. ++Lar: t/c 14:55, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

the image captioned "The rock ledge that Laurel Canyon Creek spills over during heavy rainfall, viewed from lower on the Laurel Canyon Trail." - could that one be cropped to show the waterfall/ledge more clearly without losing perspective? You can upload a new cropped one and link to the original. (done)

Sure. Shannon ^talk ^SIGN! 22:05, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Done Shannon ^talk _contribs ^sign!_:) 01:36, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sorted. ++Lar: t/c 14:55, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~Last image caption "California State Route 73 crossing Laguna Canyon, built despite violent protests in the 1990s." ... the article body doesn't say the protests were violent.~~

Fixed. Shannon ^talk ^SIGN! 22:05, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sorted. ++Lar: t/c 01:55, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
----> SUMMARY : all these concerns are resolved now ++Lar: t/c 14:55, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Overall:
Pass/Fail:

My take is that this is a hold while we discuss this stuff. I may be wrong about a fair bit of it, see what you think. But this article has a lot of potential and I enjoyed reading it. Thanks for creating it! ++Lar: t/c 02:42, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the research and changes so far, I'll comment in more depth soon. ++Lar: t/c 22:33, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the delay, I'll try to take a cut at this soon. The fixes look good so far. Did you have more stuff to talk about, Shannon? I view my comments as mostly optional suggestions, there's not anything here I see as a complete showstopper if not changed. ++Lar: t/c 22:31, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have commented on all the areas where you fixed things already. What's your thinking on the rest? (remember suggestions can be disagreed with, tis not a mandatory process) We're running off the end of the week-hold but I am not in a rush if you're not... ++Lar: t/c 01:55, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can you clarify what's the "summary" section? Just kinda curious, as the explanation is quite vague. Shannon ^talk _contribs ^sign!_:) 00:41, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The last section of the article. It may have any number of different heading/titles. For example Croton_Dam_(Michigan) ends with "current status", SS_Christopher_Columbus ends with "Disposition"... George_Washington has a "Legacy" section toward the end, etc. ... other articles end with some assessment of the impact on other things. If you could close with some sort of wrapup that talks about what this canyon means to folk, what impact it's had, etc. it might be good. But this is only a suggestion. I did not realise that you had made some progress, let me take another review read soon, maybe we're far enough along now to pass it. ++Lar: t/c 20:12, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, I made an attempt at a section "Future", maybe you can see how it is? Shannon ^talk _contribs ^sign!_:) 04:03, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Works well I think. ++Lar: t/c 15:01, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reassessment

Given the amount of time that has went by since I first reviewed this, and in light of the many changes made, in addition to checking the detailed items above I took a general pass through the article again. It's a very nice piece of work now. I am pleased to pass it. Shannon1, I hope we get a chance to work together again. Thank you for your efforts. ++Lar: t/c 15:01, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Laguna Canyon. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080516092617/http://www.ocwatersheds.com/watersheds/laguna_citycounty_juristiction.asp to http://www.ocwatersheds.com/watersheds/laguna_citycounty_juristiction.asp

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 01:48, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Laguna Canyon. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080516093305/http://www.ocwatersheds.com/watersheds/laguna_watercourses_elevation.asp to http://www.ocwatersheds.com/watersheds/laguna_watercourses_elevation.asp

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 04:26, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Laguna Canyon. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20110727012214/http://www.lagunagreenbelt.org/page11/page18/morehistory.html to http://www.lagunagreenbelt.org/page11/page18/morehistory.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 22:09, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Laguna Canyon. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100602023329/http://www.calstatela.edu/dept/geology/ColburnRivers.pdf to http://www.calstatela.edu/dept/geology/ColburnRivers.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:32, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]