Talk:Salton Buttes

Location map

300km
200miles

Salton Buttes

  

Made with Template:OSM Location map. Not sure this can be used in infoboxes. Template:Maplink is another option. HLHJ (talk) 01:45, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

That it doesn't show the relief IMO is a big drawback with that map. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 06:29, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Ganesha811 (talk · contribs) 03:34, 17 July 2019 (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.	No issues with spelling or grammar. Recommend changing UK English spellings (kilometres, millimetres) to American English per MOS:TIES but no big deal.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	Concerns addressed.
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.	Very good.
	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).	Sources check out. Lots of them, no original research, no direct quotations, etc. Nothing likely to be challenged. Scientific citation guidelines followed.
	2c. it contains no original research.	Pass.
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.	Pass.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	Pass. Thorough and comprehensive.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	Pass after consideration.
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	Pass.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	Most work completed in 2018.
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.	No issues.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	Pass.
	7. Overall assessment.	PASS

Hi! Starting my review of this page. Ganesha811 (talk) 03:34, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

Update: First runthrough of review above. Still need to check for copyright issues. Ganesha811 (talk) 04:10, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

@Ganesha811: Remedied some lead issues. Normally we don't add references to it, however. I'd say the coordinates are pertinent information and thus keep them. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 17:42, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

Passed GA review

Congrats Jo-Jo Eumerus! Good article indeed. Ganesha811 (talk) 18:56, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

Regarding reference to "Ice Age"

Hello @HLHJ: Thank you for the correction. Please note that my inclusion of the term "Ice Age" was taken directly from the Wikipedia article Pleistocene. The article seems to say that the Pleistocene is also commonly referred to as the "Ice Age". Possibly that page needs to be changed also. OvertAnalyzer (talk) 00:16, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

Problem is, the Pleistocene was subdivided into glacial-interglacial stages. Some of the proposed eruption dates would correspond to interglacial stages, such as Marine isotope stage 3. Thus even by that definition of "ice age" it would not be appropriate to use it in this context. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:42, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

Somewhat problematic addition

I am a bit concerned about this source. It's not entirely clear that all the plants described are physically linked to this volcano, nor where the energy output data come from. It also needs to be formatted like the other references in the article. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:33, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

I've replaced it with the other source at Imperial Valley Geothermal Project and added a different EIA source to form EIA-860M, which has the current installed capacities; all of these are at the Buttes. Reywas92^Talk 14:20, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

The information is in the Excel table? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:42, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

Yes, it's big but the most current info is verifiable. The PDF source also has MW capacities with the 11 plants listed but a few of them are out of date. Reywas92^Talk 13:19, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, it's not obvious where in the Excel table the information is. Is it a sum of numerous fields? Might be worth adding to the citation template. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 14:18, 22 March 2023 (UTC)