This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Mono Lake article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1Auto-archiving period: 365 days |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 365 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 6 sections are present. |
I believe that the article is getting overcrowded with images, and we are starting to see sandwiching of text between images in the Ecology section. There are several redundant images of the tufa towers.
I moved two images out of the article and into the Commons gallery, but was reverted without explanation by User:BattleBorn89. I'd like to see if we can come to consensus about how to relieve the excess of images. What do other editors think? — hike395 ( talk) 09:34, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
Hi Mono Lake enthusiasts,
I am currently reviewing literature regarding the isotope geochemistry of Mono Lake for my research. I am planning to add a section on Mono Lake isotope geochemistry for my stable isotope biogeochemistry class. It will be a full on science section that people can skip if they aren't interested in it. However, many geochemists study Mono Lake and will probably find such a section useful. It will mainly focus on how carbonate rocks in Mono Lake may reflect climate changes and lake level changes during the Ice Age. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Evalinghan ( talk • contribs) 19:39, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
I am 99% sure the video for the song Unholy love by Doro was shot at Mono Lake. This could be added to the article.
ICE77 ( talk) 00:20, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
"Rising" does not correlate with the "decrease" in the description. Pls fix. -- Ghettobuoy ( talk) 12:56, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
We have a major jargon problem here; the Mono Lake entry has apparently been hijacked by scientists, to the detriment of the general public. Most of the middle section is entirely unparsible by civilians.
I'm not disputing the accuracy, or even the utility, of the data provided. But Wikipedia is a general-interest source, not a scientific journal. Anyone surfing in for a good overview of this subject is going to drown in all that creole.
This is a common problem on WP, of course. Our articles are edited by well-informed enthusiasts, and that means that entries on highly-technical topics tend to get, well... highly technical. (Medical subjects are the worst offenders. Fortunately, if you visit the talk pages of those articles, you'll often find the page editors themselves crossing swords over the issue.)
I'd suggest that the technical sections in this entry be trimmed by about 2/3, chiefly by summarising their content in plain English and sending curious readers to more detailed and technical sources via citations. What limnological jargon is judged necessary for lay comprehension should be briefly explained in-text and hot-linked to relevant WP entries. Laodah 21:03, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
SkepticalRaptor: I was hoping to find a replacement reference for the text which was removed today, but John Hart's "Storm Over Mono" (a solid reference) explicitly states "What the Kuzedika called Mono Lake itself their descendants do not remember." Finney1234 ( talk) 20:06, 11 August 2020 (UTC)