Talk:Lake Cahuilla

Question(s) during GOCE edit

Hey, Jo-Jo Eumerus – can you clarify this sentence for me? I'm having trouble parsing through it. I've looked at the NAD article and I still am unsure of the meaning of this sentence in the Geography section:
Major shorelines are the 12 metres (39 ft) above North American Datum (NAD) shoreline and other 20–50 metres (66–164 ft) above NAD.

The NAD article says that there are two NAD in use, do we need to specify which one is being referred to? Maybe it is assumed to be the more recent? Also, should the second "shoreline" come out, the NAD doesn't refer specifically to the shoreline, right?

Here's what I propose, unless it mangles the meaning of course!

Major shorelines existed at 12 metres (39 ft) above North American Datum (NAD) shoreline and at 20–50 metres (66–164 ft) above NAD.

Thanks for your patience in explaining geological concepts–learning new things is one of the reasons I love being a Wikipedian! – gwendy (talk) 14:14, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

@Gwendy: Proposed rewrite seems OK to me. Source does not appear to explain which NAD is used, but it refers to findings made before 1967 if that helps. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 14:54, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

@Jo-Jo Eumerus: Thanks! If the source doesn't specify the NAD, I don't think we want to assume. If the reader is interested in that level of detail, they can view the source and make the assumption themselves. I am enjoying working through this article (& am learning) a lot! It is still a bit dense from me and it's taking a while–I hope that's okay! – gwendy (talk) 03:01, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Here's another one, @Jo-Jo Eumerus: :
On Lake Cahuilla's eastern shore, the nature of the shoreline ranges from 7.6 metres (25 ft) high wavecut cliffs beneath the Mecca Hills over baymouth bars farther south, one of which reaches a length of 5.6 kilometres (3.5 mi) at the Orocopia Mountains.
The "ranges from" leads me to believe there should be a "to" in there somewhere to separate the high and low but I'm not sure where it should go. Should it be in place of "over" ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gwendy (talk • contribs)

@Gwendy: Just a note, pings don't work if you don't sign a post. Anyhow, I think the "to" needs to connect to the next sentence. Not sure how to rewrite that so that it doesn't give a "seasnake" sentence. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 14:51, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

@Jo-Jo Eumerus: – Okay, I went with this: The nature of the shoreline varies; to the east it includes 7.6 metres (25 ft) high wavecut cliffs beneath the Mecca Hill ... Feel free to change it if it doesn't work! – gwendy (talk) 12:20, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Seems OK to me. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 12:21, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

A note about wikilinks, @Jo-Jo Eumerus: You may have noticed, I removed a LOT of them. The article felt cluttered to me, bordering on difficult to read. The guideline is only the first mention, but I tried to leave some where they were directly related to the topic of the section. For example, I left Holocene & Pleistocene links in the Chronology section. Obviously, feel free to add them back in places you deem necessary . – gwendy (talk) 20:07, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, @Gwendy:. The overlinking is a bad habit I have. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:11, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Codyorb (talk · contribs) 17:21, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Commencing GA review for Lake Cahuilla. I'll read through the article and begin reviewing later today. Codyorb (talk) 17:21, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

REVIEW: Sorry for the delay! Here's the review:

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

   Article is somewhat long, although it's very readable and informative.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):

   All facts verified with citations

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

   Images are licensed for usage

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   Passes. Great work on a great article!

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Lake Cahuilla. 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/20170305120303/https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/Trough-to-trough-The-Colorado-River-and-the-Salton-Reynolds-Jefferson/88af68bf408e078b367d5939ad46b0f3fbd47a44 to https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/Trough-to-trough-The-Colorado-River-and-the-Salton-Reynolds-Jefferson/88af68bf408e078b367d5939ad46b0f3fbd47a44

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

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• 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) 19:36, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Well, that needed an extra fix... Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:00, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Overlinking

Is it really necessary to link California and Mexico? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:12, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

I feel like it was a positive addition; since the lake was in modern-day California and Mexico and there was no link to those pages from the article, they should be linked. Why is it better not to link them? Yoleaux (talk) 19:02, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

WP:OVERLINK, basically. Mexico is a major sovereign country and California arguably one of the best known US states. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 19:09, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Indigenous name

The words paul and paulnevolent appear to be using a non-standard, English-influenced orthography. The source cited doesn't provide a source for the words. Pál is the Cahuillan word for water, but the sources I've found don't mention any similarly-named beings involved in the creation myth. Based on similar words I've seen (especially in ), I suspect the "correct" statement involves one of the nukatem like the "water demon" Palpukawil, but I can't find enough information to be sure. I know it's a small thing, but it stood out to me as odd, especially on a good article.

References

Exobiotic 💬 ✒️ 15:46, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

Hrmm. Unfortunately, my knowledge about proper Cahuilla orthography could fit on a postage stamp with lots of room left, so I can't fix it myself. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:15, 25 April 2024 (UTC)