Talk:Lake Manix/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Stedil (talk · contribs) 02:59, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Greetings! I will be reviewing this article. I'll update your progress toward meeting the criteria in the table, while providing specific areas to address below the table. Stedil (talk) 02:59, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

I'm working on getting access to the references. I'll start the review once I obtain them. Stedil (talk) 03:17, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Stedil Thanks. I can wait longer if necessary - checking references is an often underappreciated task of GA reviewing. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 10:01, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

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.	Just a few minor areas where the meaning is unclear. Update: everything fixed.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.
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.
	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).
	2c. it contains no original research.
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	Meets GA requirements of broad coverage. To be comprehensive (FA standard), some additional expansion and explanation would be necessary within Biology, Climate, and Archeology.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
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.	All images are either CC or public domain.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
	7. Overall assessment.	Well done. Thanks for your patience while I figured out how to get access to Geoscience World and Science Direct.

Source Check

• "Environments of nearshore lacustrine" link doesn't travel to the document. May have been moved to a different location. Stedil (talk) 19:12, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

Added an archive. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:45, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

• "The name was derived from the Manix railroad siding of the Union Pacific, east of Barstow" this information seems to be entirely from Jefferson. I didn't see any mention of this in Reheis and Redwine. Is the Reheis reference due to the figure showing the location of Barstow on pg. 229? Stedil (talk) 19:23, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

I believe so, but since GeoScienceWorld's PDF isn't currently working I cannot recheck it. I'll look at that later. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:30, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

Removed the superfluous citation. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 10:17, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

• "The total surface area of the lake is given by sources as 520–780 square kilometres (200–300 sq mi) or 236 square kilometres (91 sq mi)." Is there a reason both figures are given? They're pretty widely different. The first is very broad and comes from a rather old source (1934), whereas the second figure is more recent and precise (source cited in WP cites a different article from 1999). Is it possible that the newer figure is more accurate? Perhaps more modern measurements can be more exact than what was used in 1934. Are there other sources that support the 236 figure? It wouldn't hurt to cite the original source (Meek 1999) while you're at it. Stedil (talk) 20:00, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

The 236km2 surface area is cited by other sources as well, although they probably also rely on Meek 1999. I don't have access to that source so won't cite it, but since 236 is more frequently mentioned I've edited the article so that it is the main info. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 10:17, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

Language Clarity

• "The latter basin is heavily dissected in comparison to the first two, and was formerly separated from the Cady Basin between Coyote Basin and Troy Basin until the Mojave River eroded its way through the Buwalda Ridge, possibly assisted by the Manix Fault trace" This sentence is long and confusing. I had to reread it several times before it made sense. Consider rephrasing. Could the sentence be broken up? Stedil (talk) 19:34, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

I've broken the sentence up. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 11:19, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

• paragraph beginning, "Lake Manix was influenced by earthquakes" doesn't flow very well. As written, it comes across as a random collection of facts. For instance, I don't think a general audience would be able to make the connection between "Distorted sediments, soil liquefaction remnants and sand blows" and how these characteristics suggest earthquake activity in Lake Manix's past. Stedil (talk) 21:00, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

Took a stab at making this clearer. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 11:19, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

• "These lake fillings were influenced by shifts in storm tracks caused by the Laurentide ice sheet. Alternatively, changes in sea surface temperatures increasing moisture supply or increased supply from tropical regions have been implicated" These two sentences are unclear. The first sentence makes it seem like it is certainly a cause of lake fillings. The second sentence seems to imply that there are competing explanations for the lake fillings. Are these two sentences competing theories, or did they both contribute, or is there uncertainty? Stedil (talk) 21:45, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

That's a though one. The storm track shift is the "oldest hypothesis" but other more recent discussions (such as Reheis 2012) have invoked it as well. I haven't seen a source discussing whether they are "competing" or "contributing" theories. I think the correct way to formulate this is to state the "laurentide ice sheets" sentence in a less definitive fashion, yes? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 11:19, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

I adjusted the language, replacing "Alternatively" with "may also have contributed" Stedil (talk) 21:06, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

• "In the region, runoff is also influenced by the El Niño Southern Oscillation, the Northern Annular Mode and the Pacific Decadal Oscillation" You may want to make clear that this section is about recent history, since the preceding paragraph is about the ice ages. Stedil (talk) 21:50, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

Clarified that, but now I am not sure about the sentence structure; second opinion needed. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 11:19, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

• I read through the source again, and, if I'm reading it correctly, (p. 33), they are saying that currently observed climate patterns (NAM, etc.) may have influenced Lake Manix during the interglacial period dating back 100 thousand years. Take another read-through of that section (p. 32-33) and see if it can be connected to the previous WP sentence about interglacial periods. Stedil (talk) 21:27, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

  So done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:50, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

• paragraph beginning, "Tufa formed within Lake Manix": Terms such as "tufa," "well mixed," and "thermocline" should be better defined, or at the very least, the reader should be able to infer their meaning based on the context of the paragraph. For a general audience, it may not be clear what this paragraph is about, or how the information at the beginning of the paragraph is connected to the environment/temperature of the lake mentioned later. Stedil (talk) 22:20, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

Wow, that was hard to do. I've left "well mixed" since the colloquial meaning matches the one used here fairly well, but I am willing to listen to arguments to the contrary. Not happy with the source for the note on "thermocline" but I can't find anything better. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 11:19, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

• I think well-mixed is ok now that you've linked it to thermocline. The note helps to connect it to the latter discussion in the paragraph. The inclusion of "tufa" in this paragraph still confuses me. What does the presence of tufa have to do with the temperature/environment of the lake? Stedil (talk) 21:52, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

  Honestly, only the fact that I can't find a better place for it. Tufa deposition is a physical phenomenon in the lake so tangentially related to its environment. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:50, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

• "this theory is viewed as highly questionable" This isn't the exact sentiment of the sources. The first source says that evidence for it doesn't exist yet. The second source says that its presence hasn't been confirmed. Just because evidence hasn't been found doesn't make the theory questionable. As mentioned in the WP article, the second source does provide support for the theory, which contradicts it being "highly questionable." Stedil (talk) 22:51, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

Ya, I never liked this sentence at all. I've removed the "highly" - the impression I have from other sources is that it's more likely than not that Manix did not overflow there - but as you say it ain't this clear cut. I've also specified the main "against" argument. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 11:19, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

• "Diatoms found at Lake Manix include Stephanodiscus species. Likewise, stromatolite deposits have been found." How are these sentences related? Why is it "likewise?" Stedil (talk) 17:47, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

Only because both are microbial and to not have orphaned sentences. I've split that paragraph into the surrounding ones, but a second opinion is needed. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:31, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

Hmm, I think it works better to have them in their own paragraph, since they don't really fit in the others. If there are any other microorganisms mentioned in the material, they can be added to this paragraph later. I added a bit to better establish the connection between the two. Stedil (talk) 22:03, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

• "While the Victorville area is dominated by winter precipitation, a secondary rain season occurs at Barstow during late summer" meaning is unclear. When it says "winter precipitation," does it mean that precipitation is more frequent in the winter? The sentence could also be interpreted to mean precipitation that is common in winter, such as snow, sleet, or freezing rain. Stedil (talk) 18:05, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

The most natural formulation would be "during winter", but that is used verbatim by the source so I did try to word it differently and a mess ensued. Rewrote it again. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:31, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

• "This breakthrough probably resulted in a catastrophic flood, considering the chaotically bedded rocks formed by the breakthrough" The second phrase is unclear. What is meant by "chaotically bedded rocks" and how exactly did they cause a catastrophic flood? Stedil (talk) 18:50, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

Consequence, not cause. I've rewritten this, is it a reasonable interpretation of The Ql6 unit overlies fluvial sand and gravel (unit Qof) that locally includes reworked clasts of green lacustrine mud, and in a few localities in the Afton subbasin, several meters of chaotically bedded blocks (as much as 2m across) of semi-indurated green lake mud, silt, and sand mixed with blocks of brown playa mud (photo 35 on sheet2B, section M06‒100; Reheis and others, 2007). The chaotically bedded deposits are interpreted as the result of deposition caused by a catastrophic failure of a former lake threshold on the south side of Buwalda Ridge, astride the Manix fault (photo 49 on sheet 1). This event was followed by deposition of sand and gravel by a high-energy stream draining the upstream subbasins, and a brief lacustrine period during which the Manix tephra was deposited. Thus, this subbasin integration event occurred shortly before 184 ka.? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:31, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

The rephrase helps. I think the problem is the source doesn't clearly explain what it means by "chaotically bedded," so I think this is fine as it is written now. Stedil (talk) 22:13, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

• "This drainage was probably quick" contradicts the statement later, "As of 2003, the formation speed question was still not settled." If the question isn't settled, it might be better to open this section with a statement about the discrepancy in sources between a fast and slow drainage, as was done earlier before the highstands paragraph. If the faster drainage is more likely based on recent evidence, then the "As of 2003" should be amended. Stedil (talk) 19:53, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

Blech. Added caveat but perhaps the "as of 2003" sentence should be removed or restated to "as of 2008" since the same publication discusses both views but that may be original research. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:56, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, disagreement between sources can make writing these sections tricky. I think your rewrite works as it currently reads in the article. I would leave the "as of 2003" alone for now. Stedil (talk) 22:17, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

Further comments

Thanks for the thorough review, @Stedil:. I'll address these concerns tomorrow. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 22:20, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

Addressed some points so far, @Stedil:. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 11:19, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

@Jo-Jo Eumerus: Finished with the initial review. I'll do another read-through soon before passing the article. Great work at summarizing, organizing, and clearly describing the relevant research on this topic. Stedil (talk) 20:42, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

@Jo-Jo Eumerus: Finished second read-through. I put an additional bullet next to the two points that still need addressing. Stedil (talk) 22:23, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

@Stedil: I think I got them now. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:50, 5 February 2018 (UTC)