Talk:Yakima Fold Belt

This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

United States: Washington Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Washington. Geology Low‑importance Talk:Yakima Fold Belt is part of WikiProject Geology, an attempt at creating a standardized, informative, comprehensive and easy-to-use geology resource. If you would like to participate, you can choose to edit this article, or visit the project page for more information.GeologyWikipedia:WikiProject GeologyTemplate:WikiProject GeologyGeology articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

A good start. I was going to start this last spring, but have been too busy with other stuff. One hold-up was finding or making a decent image. Regarding which: I believe you know Harvey G.? I have been thinking of asking him for some help, like layering DNR's shapefile of the the YF over some suitable topography. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:26, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks; figured you'd see this and make improvements rapidly. I don't know Harvey. Should I? Just an amateur here... motorcycles are usually my thing but WA geology interests me too. I'd kill for an image like this in the article. — Brianhe (talk) 23:56, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, figure 7 on page 10 here might be better. — Brianhe (talk) 17:38, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  Yes, better because it shows more of the area, and more of the "cultural context" (cities, etc.). I think even better would be to extend south to the Columbia River (for reference, and the Columbia Hills), west at least as far as Mt. Rainier (to show the cross-Cascades connection), and northeast to Coulee City (to show a prominent lineament that — speculatively! — may be the northern border of the YF). I'll see if I can come up with something.

  I don't what kind study you've made of the topic. If you're interested I can provide a list of 20 or 30 sources that I think pretty much cover it. Of particular interest are Blakely et al. 2011 ("Connecting the Yakima fold and thrust belt to active faults in the Puget Lowland"), and Pratt 2012 ("Large-scale splay faults on a strike-slip fault system"). ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 20:00, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  P.S. Forgot to add that the first image you pointed, being more technical, might be good deeper into the article. I think I've talked with Reidel before. If not, there's another editor that has taken a class from him and might ask. Either way, he might be amenable to providing the image. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 20:04, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't know much about this before starting research for the article a few days ago, but did contribute to some other geology/geophysics topics like Seattle Fault which you probably remember, and created Foster Coulee. Did some work-study instrumenation stuff in a geophys lab in college, maybe some of it rubbed off on me. So yes I would like to see your sources. The NGS paper by Reidel that I added most recently had a very good list of sources too. Also your idea to talk to Dr. Reidel for permission to use graphics sounds like a good idea. I assume you are familiar with OTRS ticketing for bringing in released files? — Brianhe (talk) 21:30, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Still have to format my list of docs. Shall I put it here, or on a separate subpage? ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:05, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm kind of a fan of workpages -- how about Talk:Yakima Fold Belt/Workpage? Brianhe (talk) 23:35, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

How about Talk:Yakima Fold Belt/Sources? ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:36, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Made my own image and added it. (Though I may have screwed up the upload form — I have done this before!!). It leaves a bit of hole in the text, but I think enough can be said to fill that. I'm thinking of adding a clickable map, but don't remember if the size of the image should be settled first. Also, not all of the discernible features have targets yet. So I am also working on a list of the major ridges. Several sources list principal features, but they don't fully coincide. I made a version of the image with main ridges numbered, but felt the numbers distracted the reader from focusing on the imagery. Could add a separate image with full annotation. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:44, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In the Location section some of the text (e.g., about the Ice Harbor dikes) does not follow the source. And I don't think the incidental mention of features in sources like Pogue is a sound basis for enumerating what "folds" are included. So I am going to dive into the sources a bit, and then rewrite this section. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:31, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Why don't you like Pogue as a source? — Brianhe (talk) 02:23, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's not Pogue personally (he seems to know what he's talking about), but the 2009 article. That's about "geological influences on the terroir", so it is to be expected any geology not an influence will get short shrift. It would be an error to expect it to go beyond its stated topic and be complete in regard of overall geology. It is the kind of source I would use to find other sources. And there are plenty of better sources. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:24, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. Just saw the quote you added about the Ice Harbor dikes. Yes, that (or perhaps the craton edge) is a boundary, But the point is: it's the eastern boundary, not the northern. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:32, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Understood. I have been concentrating on some interesting developments in motorcycling for a while, so I'll probably be leaving this to you and others for a bit longer before I check back in. — Brianhe (talk) 18:51, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Before you leave how about taking a careful look at the image I added? I would like to know if there are any problems I should address before investing further effort into it. I could wish it covered a little more area, but currently I don't have that option. I think it should be a little larger, but I don't think there will be any problem scaling it. I'm also looking at having another version of it in the Geology section, showing some of the faults and folds. This could have more annotation of features (i.e., numbering). Which might seem more appropriate for Location, but I like having a plain image where the topographical features are unobscured. Perhaps the plain image could be in the lead. What do you think? ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 20:38, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not a graphic designer but have read a little bit about design, so this feedback is given with that caveat. Also hope this doesn't come across as harsh because I do not own this article and appreciate your collaboration. That said, the map is hard for me to understand for a few reasons. The yellow line is thin and the shade doesn't provide contrast with the background. Cities are listed with two different symbologies. The ridges themselves are not called out, in fact the overlay graphics kind of draw attention away from the underlying map. Also, there is no context for where the map is in the world or the state, i.e. an inset or accompanying graphic of some kind. It would be great to have somebody who's really good at graphics give this a go, if not that, then trying to reproduce one of the maps in the literature that we discussed earlier. – Brianhe (talk) 18:05, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your criticism; these are all valid points to consider. And indeed, I have considered them. I think it comes down to: what is the image trying to do? and what are the trade-offs? Let me lay out my rationale, and then let's see what might be done better.

• My primary consideration is to give prominence to the topographic relief, so the reader can see for himself, with a minimum of distraction, how distinctive these ridges are. This is why the yellow line is both thin (to avoid obscuring topographical detail) and yellow (so it is less distracting). I think it is fine if the reader initially misses the yellow line; it is readily findable when looked for. My preference would be to show the OWL with a broad stripe of nearly transparent tint (like at Columbia River Basalt Group image), but I can't do that directly. Do you think something like a thin purple line would be better?

• This is also part of the reason I did not add any labels, to avoid obscuring or distracting from the topographic relief. What I have overlaid is a trade-off for what I think is minimally necessary. I am thinking of having an index copy of the image that would number all of the prominent ridges, and perhaps even show some of the faults. Even better, I could make the map "clickable", like I did at Puget Sound faults, so that as the mouse cursor moves over the image the labels will pop up. But I don't want to start on that till we have settled the base map.

• Providing the proper map context is a subtle, multi-factorial problem. I think the map in the infobox suffices to provide the general context, particularly if one pays any attention to the detail (i.e., the Columbia River). Perhaps you think this should be more explicit? It would help if both images provided a common point of reference by marking Yakima with the same symbol. But when I changed the red square to a triangle my map-making soul rebelled: triangles are for mountains!! Alternately, I think we should look into whether the triangle on the infobox image can be changed to a square.

• I used different symbols for Yakima and the Tri-Cities to avoid having to label them, and to distinguish them. They are not simply two instances of the class "cities". Yakima is as near as any other place as being the center of the YFB, while the Tri-Cities, though larger and more populous, is significant here only for being a recognizable place on the map.

• I don't think an inset map would help. The only place to put it is on the left, which would cover one or more of the volcanoes. If showing them (and the Cascades) is not useful, then the image could be trimmed substantially, which would permit zooming in on the area of interest. But for anyone with even the slightest awareness of the state's geography I think Mt. Rainier (and the Columbia River) provide a meaningful context.

• The context of the map could be clearer if it zoomed out a bit to encompass Portland and Tacoma (which are just beyond the corners), and perhaps Seattle. And I would like to zoom out a bit, if only to include the Columbia Hills. But the software I'm using to extract the base image doesn't do "a bit": it jumps to the next larger built-in scale, where it loses little details like the Columbia and Snake Rivers. In the end it's another trade-off between looking broadly at the context, or narrowly at the featured folds.

So there is my rationale for the trade-offs I made. Let me know what might be done better. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:43, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is odd, the map has been deleted. Anyway I think our objectives are similar enough to mine that there's no reason to re-hash the construction philosophy. Maybe a pro mapmaker will get in on the project at some point. In the interim maybe it would be helpful simply to add a box for YFB to Geofeatures-PacificNW.png, having roughly the outlines of the map you constructed? Brianhe (talk) 20:10, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  Yeah, a question was raised as to whether permission was needed to use DGER's shaded-relief data. And my previous contact at DGER having just retired I have to educate someone else regarding the requirements of Wikipedia. I am hoping to get the image reinstated, but this could take weeks. :-(

  Adding a tinted region to the Geofeaures map is possible, and intrigues me; I will ponder that a bit.

  I am having a little angst at using a mountain range infobox (the Folds not being a mountain range, and the "highest point" in particular being rather irrelevant). I am looking at switching it to the landform infobox. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 20:33, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  Switched the infobox type. That should be better. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:42, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

New image!! Took a different source that has a clear license. (Though — heh, heh — it is probably based on the same data which was disallowed for me. Don't tell anyone.) Not as clear as I would like, but I was able to make the new image a little larger (includes the Columbia Hills). If the new image is not flagged within several days I will start on the clickable map. I also replaced the text of the section to take advantage of having the image as a ready reference. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:27, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Looking good now. Glad you could find a workaround. In case you didn't realize, the text refers to "the circle" on the map, and there are actually three of them. - Brianhe (talk) 00:08, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. I think the text provides enough context that there should be no confusion. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:02, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And now each circle, as well as all of the discernible ridges, will pop-up its label when the cursor hovers over it, as I have just added the "imagemap". I included a lot of places not explicitly marked on the map, so there should be no problem locating various features. Though with such a small image it could be a bit of an Easter egg hunt to find some of them. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:45, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bri: no objection to your changes, and I'll try to make them good after rolling back User-duck's questionable citation edits.

@User-duck: I am reverting your edits for violation of CITEVAR and general, well, I am not certain how explain except as being ill-considered. Ask if you have any questions. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:29, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@J. Johnson: Do you have a plan to resolve citation with "CS1: long volume value"? --User-duck (talk) 22:21, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not unless I know what the problem is. I certainly object to the use of {cite report}. I also question some of your choices in parameters, though I allow I am not entirely satisfied with what I have used. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:35, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]