# Talk:Neopluvial

This review is transcluded from Talk:Neopluvial/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Kent G. Budge (talk · contribs) 16:46, 24 June 2020 (UTC)


### GA Notice
GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
I like the article and believe it is well on its way to being a good article. I do have some objections that need to be addressed before I pass the article. These are spelled out below.
It is reasonably well written.
a (prose, spelling, and grammar):  b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): 
Needs short description. Other comments below.
Added one. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 20:13, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (reference section):  b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):  d (copyvio and plagiarism): 

It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects):  b (focused): 
Some aspects need further explanation. See comments below.
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias: 
Is this hypothesis credibly disputed by any non-fringe scientist? If so, that needs to be included. If not, that needs to be established.
Not by any scientist that uses the term "neopluvial" at least. Other sources do not dispute its existence either. Pretty much the only point of disagreement is about the exact dates. See however my observations on the Texas section. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 20:13, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.: 

It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales):  b (appropriate use with suitable captions): 
I realize this topic may not lend itself to pretty pictures, but there is not a single image or graphic. Is there a graph of regional temperatures showing the cooling or precipitation history? That would be very helpful.
There are plenty of graphs and other images, none however are compatible with the copyright rules of Wikipedia as far as I can tell. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 20:13, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
Overall:
Pass/Fail: 
Good luck improving the article.


### High stands
In the second paragraph of the Evidence section, it is unclear what the two highstands mentioned refer to. Highstands of which? Great Salt Lake? Pyramid Lake? Or both?

I've cut that sentence. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 20:13, 25 June 2020 (UTC)


### "mammal communities in the Lake Bonneville basin changed"
In what way? I think this needs to be elaborated a bit more for the article to be fully informative.

Expanded on this, but perhaps some restructuration may be warranted? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 20:13, 25 June 2020 (UTC)


### "wooden vegetation"
Awkward. Does this mean "forest", "scrubland", or something else?

There was a lowering of upper tree lines, anincrease of woodlands at mid to lower elevations; anda reduction of desert shrub vegetation. does not specify much. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 20:13, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
It's still a  big improvement. Thanks. --Kent G. Budge (talk) 02:04, 26 June 2020 (UTC)


### "Counterintuitively, higher tree line elevations in the Lake Bonneville area occurred during the Neopluvial."
After thinking about it a moment, I understood what you mean, but you might want to spell it out. Is there a published explanation for this that prevents this observation from falsifying the hypothesis?

The source does not dwell that much on this point, nor on why it'd be counterintuitive. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 20:13, 25 June 2020 (UTC)


### Chronology
This section is a bit unreadable, being a long recitation of dates. Is there a way to organize it for easier readability? Also, as a reader, I would appreciate a discussion of the methods of dating used to date these events, if only to convince me that the scatter is real and not just an artifact of imperfect dating methods.

That needs some more thinking. It's going to be hard to write out something else as there isn't much of an overarching literature on the topic; most studies about the neopluvial focus on one particular site or one particular lake. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 20:13, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
Perhaps a graphical timeline of some kind? Or a table? --Kent G. Budge (talk) 02:05, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
Maybe, I am not an expert on graphical timelines on Wikipedia. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:19, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
I'm not terribly experienced with it myself. I'll look at what templates are available, and if there's something that looks suitable, I'll take a crack at it.--Kent G. Budge (talk) 14:05, 26 June 2020 (UTC)


### "declining summer insolation"
Would appreciate an explanation for what caused this. Increased cloud cover? Orbital cycles?

The latter, but the source doesn't bother to spell out this fact. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 20:13, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
Ah, good. But need to dig up a source. --Kent G. Budge (talk) 02:06, 26 June 2020 (UTC)


### west Texas Neopluvial
This seems like a nice, focused topic, but the brief mention that the term is also used for what seems to be a different event in Texas opens a whole new can of worms and then doesn't examine it. Is this considered part of the western Neopluvial or is it a completely different event? If this is in dispute, are there sources to cite?

Now that's an interesting research question. doi:10.1191/095968399677728249 (the source) draws a connection between the neopluvial there and the western US neopluvial. However, it attributes it to monsoonal changes and most discussions of the western US neopluvial do not draw a connection to monsoonal phenomena, so I wasn't certain that they were talking about the same neopluvial phenomenon. Nearby Lake Palomas has been connected to monsoonal mechanisms. Now the discovery made in doi:10.1016/j.quascirev.2020.106312 that Owens Lake overflowed until 6,400 years ago might imply that in the future there'll be a reevaluation of the mid-Holocene moisture history of the western US; but until that happens it's probably best to not jump to conclusions. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 20:13, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
It's probably sufficient to briefly note that a credible source links conditions in Texas to the Neopluvial. That indicates to the reader that this is a connection still being researched, which is fine. --Kent G. Budge (talk) 02:07, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
Did a mini expansion here. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:19, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
Yes, much better. I think my concern here is adequately addressed. --Kent G. Budge (talk) 21:05, 30 June 2020 (UTC)


### Notice
Thanks for the comments. I'll respond to these tomorrow if I may. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 19:00, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

No rush. I'm happy to work with you on this. --Kent G. Budge (talk) 19:12, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
@Kent G. Budge: Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 20:13, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
@Kent G. Budge: Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 12:19, 20 July 2020 (UTC)


### Reevaluation (20 July 2020)
I've revisited the evaluation. I accept that there aren't any licensable images available and, as I noted, this topic may not lend itself to that in any case. All my other concerns have been addressed except one: The chronology section is still one long paragraph that is difficult to read. There should be a way to break this up a bit and make it more readable. --Kent G. Budge (talk) 14:47, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

@Kent G. Budge:Hmm. Would a bulleted list work? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 21:27, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
I think it might. I took a crack at using the timeline template but couldn't get it to work. A bulleted list may be as well as we can do. --Kent G. Budge (talk) 21:49, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
@Kent G. Budge:Did such a change. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 12:07, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
And I consider that it now meets all criteria for a good article. --Kent G. Budge (talk) 13:47, 21 July 2020 (UTC)