Jump to content

Talk:Salton Sea

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

Game stuff

[edit]

To the various ips, your favorite video game may contain references to a sea resembling this one, but that is irrelevant here. The info about that fictional sea belongs on the game page - not here. Vsmith (talk) 13:36, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Is this not pop culture? I'm just trying to show that there is a rendition of the Salton Sea in the video game and that the Salton Sea continues to make marks in pop culture. (121.214.63.232 (talk) 09:36, 11 October 2013 (UTC))[reply]

If you examine the other items in the list, you will note they are about the sea or some aspect of it. That the video game makers modeled a fictional place after the sea is rather not about the sea nor relevant to this article. It would be relevant to discuss that fictional place in the article about the game. Don't rightly know what "making marks in pop culture" means. Vsmith (talk) 13:18, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I understand now that it has to be about the Salton Sea or an aspect about it and not about something being modeled after it. Though, I still don't know why it was called sock puppetry. I also don't understand how any of the documentaries and in particular the mentioning of an article in the Los Angeles Times have any relation to popular culture. According to the Oxford Dictionary, popular culture means 'culture based on the tastes of ordinary people rather than an educated elite'. (121.219.57.235 (talk) 23:25, 11 October 2013 (UTC))[reply]
Perhaps the section should be retitled to Media appearances or something akin to that. Although the History Channel and others there are aimed at "ordinary people". About the sock puppetry -- when one user edits with different "accounts" ... however, as you appear to be editing with a dynamic service you ip changes often, making it appear problematic. Probably shouldn't have used that ... apologies. Vsmith (talk) 01:14, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Aplogy accepted, the name doesn't need to be changed after all, the History Channel and others are aimed at ordinary people. I'm sorry for writing in such an angry tone on your talk page. (121.219.165.146 (talk) 02:55, 12 October 2013 (UTC))[reply]

Perhaps it should be added to the popular culture section that there is a representation of the Salton Sea in GTA V. It is called the Alamo sea, and the beginning of the Trevor Phillips missions take place at this location. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.108.62.194 (talk) 19:20, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you can provide a WP:reliable source indicating the game is relevant to the sea, perhaps so. Meanwhile, it seems that you should focus on explaining the connection in the game article where there may be relevance. Have you read the above comments? Vsmith (talk) 20:40, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above comments have nothing with what 68.108.62.194 is asking. This link http://voices.mydesert.com/2013/09/17/gta-v-palm-springs-pala-springs-alamo-sea/ mentions the Salton Sea and how Rockstar Games parodied the sea and named it Alamo Sea. (143.238.228.185 (talk) 07:43, 17 October 2013 (UTC))[reply]

Size

[edit]

The surface area has been estimated as 362 sq mi per USBR and 376 sq mi per Salton Sea Authority. I understand that 15 mi x 35 mi = 525 sq mi, but it would only work if the lake were rectangular, with no peninsulas or marinas. In reality, the Salton Sea's shoreline has very complicated contours. Small yet numerous peninsulas and artificial elements (such as marinas) probably reduce the surface area of the lake significantly. Moreover, the "525 sq mi" figure only seems to be used by blogs, Facebook, Flickr and other social media... and I suspect they got it from Wikipedia. In short, we have reliable sources for 362 and 376, but not for 525. We certainly shouldn't post our own calculations (read "original research") here no matter how accurate it may seem. This is the logic behind this edit. You're welcome to revert it if you can support "525 sq mi" with a more reliable reference. Nandaro (talk) 23:31, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Text and ref added for surface area 2023 = 318 sq mi (lake continues to shrink). David notMD (talk) 12:48, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

The Salton Sea also features in Jon Krakauer's "Into The Wild". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.162.26.178 (talk) 13:42, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Question on the Colorado River

[edit]

Is there a reliable source for the statement that the Colorado river (sic) has flowed into the area for "millions" of years?THX1136 (talk) 15:55, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

The film 'Little Birds' premiered at Sundance in 2011. It was set and filmed at the Salton Sea. It has both a Wikipedia page and an IMDb page. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Birds_(film) https://www.imdb.com/title/tt1623745/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:6000:1701:8007:7D99:AAFE:E046:C0 (talk) 04:13, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Where Does the Salt Come From?

[edit]

The source of the salt should be in the lede, as it's one of the 1st questions the interested reader is going to have. Too much technical detail in the lede, and not enough basic information.2605:6000:6961:5E00:FDB8:2191:6665:8F31 (talk) 02:34, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's a sea with no standard in-flow of freshwater. I'm not sure clearly how it should be edited, but certainly a lot of the interested readers will know that causes salinity without Wikipedia saying anything.--Prosfilaes (talk) 09:33, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Why this happens is described in the article Endorheic basin, which is linked from the lead. Britmax (talk) 12:25, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Air Pollution and other toxicities

[edit]

Hello! I am new to Wikipedia and trying to improve this article as part of a class project. I was wondering where I could add recent research about air pollution (see this April 2020 research article). Tim-timata (talk) 21:15, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The article could definitely use some information on air pollution; I am surprised there is so little, given the importance of the issue. There is not an obvious spot so I can see why you asked. I did not read the technical article you mention but the scientific aspect will improve the article. I see that smell is mentioned in the History subsection Subsequent evolution. Dust is mentioned several times near the end of the subsection State restoration plan. You might expand these sections if they are relevant to the article. You might add a paragraph somewhere if it seems to fit in. My recommendation is to be constantly rereading the entire article as you edit. You may be surprised where something fits in that you hadn't thought of yet. You don't have to edit all at once. Keep saving and then don't be afraid to completely change what you just added! You may also see existing content that you edit given the information in the new reference. Cheers, have fun. Fettlemap (talk) 22:30, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mitigation plans

[edit]

I did a minor update on the mitigation plans (latest info was from 2018). The California National Resources Agency has released a new annual report in 2020. Tim-timata (talk) 21:15, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Tim-timata:, Nice job. Fettlemap (talk) 22:51, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Fettlemap:, I like the way you organized the sections. Flows much better.
@Tim-timata:, I'm not sure what the extent of your school project is, but if your intent is to significantly improve this article, one area that could use improvement is the introductory section, also called the lead. It is a bit long, and isn't focused. You can find more information regarding how write a good lead here: Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section.

If that is outside of what you feel comfortable doing, I can take a crack at it. OvertAnalyzer (talk) 23:17, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Another area that needs work is the Geology section. I believe the first sentence is inaccurate, but is definitely not sourced. It is my understanding the San Andreas Fault ends at the Salton Sea, where the Brawley Seismic Zone starts. I don't believe the San Jacinto Fault reaches the Salton Sea. In order to make the necessary changes, you will need appropriate sources (see Wikipedia:Reliable sources).
yes, I didn't mention the lead. Drive by editors often add good stuff to the lead without integrating it into the article. The current lead does not summarize the article. Cheers, Fettlemap (talk) 00:33, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Good source

[edit]

https://www.hcn.org/issues/53.1/south-water-will-california-finally-fulfill-its-promise-to-fix-the-salton-sea? -- John Broughton (♫♫) 22:15, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Salton Sea/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: RockMagnetist (talk · contribs) 21:51, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am planning to review this article. RockMagnetist(talk) 21:51, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

[edit]
  • I don't know how to edit this correctly but the fish liked when you click "sargo" in the ecology section is not the right sargo (it links to a fish also called sargo but present in the East Atlantic.) The correct sargo is Anisotremus davidsonii, which apparently is listed on wikipedia as "xanthic grunt" but is universally known as "sargo" in california, the only English speaking region in which the fish exists. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:9008:1A07:6500:AD3F:8B3D:116F:5295 (talk) 08:49, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • At a first glance, this article is generally well written and well sourced. However, I have already found one significant problem. The lead section should be an accessible overview of the contents (MOS:INTRO) and should summarize information in the body without adding significant content (MOS:LEADNO). This lead does neither of these things. Almost none of this information appears in the body, and the first sentence uses technical terms like "endorheic" that are never explained. What this article needs is a first section called Description or Geography that introduces much of the information in the lead but explains it a bit more, and then the lead needs to be rewritten so it summarizes the article properly. RockMagnetist(talk) 22:11, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Creation of the lake: A whole paragraph has no citations, and where there are citations I am not able to find most of the facts, for example flooding of the New River and Alamo River, their lengths, and any mention of Torrez-Martinez land. The section needs to be rewritten so the facts are easily verified, with citations being nearby and including page numbers if the source is long. RockMagnetist(talk) 19:00, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Climate: There is no citation for the climate classification. It's really hard to verify the rest of the information in this section using the other sources. I can't even access the USDA plant hardiness map because I'm getting warnings that the connection is not private; and in an attempt to verify the data in the table, I had to visit the PRISM page where there are a lot of fields to choose from. I chose California, Imperial County, averaged over 1981-2020, and got similar but different numbers after downloading the data; there did not appear to be any data for humidity or dew point. Either an easier to use source should be found or this table should be updated and the method of obtaining the data made more clear. RockMagnetist(talk) 19:05, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Vegetation: This is another one that is hard to verify. Basically, you have to compare the color of a region with the legend, and it's not obvious to me that the correct match is Saltbush/Greaswood rather than, say, Bluestem, while Great Basin Shrubland is not even in the legend. RockMagnetist(talk) 23:13, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Salinity: I'm a bit mystified by a recent edit that added a second copy of the same material, from the same source, but this time as a quote. Also note that the first citation is a corrected version that has a current url instead of an archived url. RockMagnetist(talk) 05:01, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Status query

[edit]

RockMagnetist, I was wondering where this review stood. While this page hasn't been edited since the end of January, I see that Fettlemap has made a great many edits to the article, perhaps addressing the issues raised in this review. Is the article closer to meeting the GA criteria now? BlueMoonset (talk) 01:17, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There is a amazing amount of material available on the Salton Sea. I have tried to flesh out the history and context but I didn't get into the technical items. I may have improved the first five items but I did not do anything to improve (or delete) Climate, Vegetation, or Salinity. If the article is going to reach Good, another editor will have to help with those issues. Fettlemap (talk) 02:40, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@BlueMoonset and Fettlemap: Sorry, I have not been very active on Wikipedia recently. When I started the review, the article seemed quite far from GA-level, and I haven't been following it closely. I see that Fettlemap has been doing a lot of good work, so I will resume the review shortly, but I have a non-Wikipedia task that I need to deal with first. RockMagnetist(talk) 15:25, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's been three months since my initial comments, and kudos to Fettlemap for improving the lead, organizing the article better, and adding some good material. But most of my comments still apply verbatim. Since a lot of the issues involve verifiability, I'm going to fail it. I think the nomination was premature. However, I do think that it's B quality now. RockMagnetist(talk) 18:06, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@RockMagnetist: But the article is noticeably outdated now: it doesn't mention the planned lithium mine at the Salton Sea. Jarble (talk) 12:27, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think 'B' quality is appropriate. One problem is that The Salton Sea did not exist prior to the 1900s; any history prior to that should be removed or significantly edited. History prior to 1900 belongs in articles discussing the Salton Trough, the Salton Sink, or Lake Cahuilla. 40.131.156.177 (talk) 23:34, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Additional TV show about the sea

[edit]

There was a show called Abandoned on the Vice Channel that profiled the Salton Sea communities and the handful of folk who still lived there. It was where I learned of the Sea. 2600:1700:C2C0:8300:24C0:514C:DBDA:EE76 (talk) 18:15, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

History of the Salton Sea

[edit]

It seems to me that this article should be broken up into two (or more) articles. If I were doing it myself, I would create two articles:

  1. . History of the Salton Sea - take the history section of the "Salton Sea" article (Salton Sea#History), and create an article with part of the current summary becoming the summary of the article.
  2. . Salton Sea - after moving Salton Sea#History to a new article, use summary style (WP:SS) on the Salton Sea#History section by pulling in parts of the lede section down.

I doubt that I'm going to get around to this, so if someone else does it, that would be wonderful. I'm curious: what do others think of this proposal? -- RobLa (talk) 05:41, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki Education assignment: California Natural History

[edit]

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 24 August 2022 and 2 December 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Chessfunblast (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by Chessfunblast (talk) 09:23, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Atmospheric Rivers

[edit]

Have the massive 2023/2024 Torential Rains had an effect on the Salton Sea water/saline Height Levels? 2601:5C6:C201:3D90:79D9:FC64:C6:ECF9 (talk) 14:50, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The lake would dry up naturally, but farmers using flood irrigation provide the main source of water. Storms have minimal impact. 〜 Adflatuss • talk 20:29, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Opening section

[edit]

This is the longest and most confusing opening section I've encountered in a while. Over several paragraphs it jumps around giving a geological history, current measurements, and a more thorough modern history, by the end of which you're left wondering if the lake is dried up or not! Every body of water has a geological history that's for the most part irrelevant to the summary section. I don't need to know about the geological history of the lake before learning what's significant about it, in particular the die-off of fish and birds at a once popular resort, which isn't mentioned until the latter half of the fourth paragraph. Why would I want to read so far in before understanding the relevance of the second paragraph? Most of this opening needs to be put into some kind of Overview section or something else, and just the key points extracted into the summary. DAVilla (talk) 05:48, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I hope these edits weren't too bold. DAVilla (talk) 06:10, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Your bold edits are welcome. The lead is the Overview section so that heading is not usually used. The lead could use further, judicious editing for clarity and length. Cheers, 〜 Adflatuss • talk 14:56, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Salton_Sea&oldid=1249731452"