Talk:Blue Hills (Washington)

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

References[edit]

I've rewritten the Geology section; I think you'll like it. Also rewrote the lead sentence to be a little less klutzy.

How about if we dump the list-defined references? It makes doing proper citations and notes a little more difficult (more than I want to deal with). If you're good with that I'll fix some problems I noticed with the existing references (full citations), particularly in use of |author= and |authors=, and fold in the references I added. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:47, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The geology is beyond my ken technically, but looks readable. Should faults be capitalized (e.g. Seattle Fault)? Other than that, do whatever you need to with the citation style. I mix up styles myself, most recently have started using {{sfn}} but not religiously. — Brianhe (talk) 02:35, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I see you dumped LDR — thanks! I'll clean up the citations in a day or two. Capitalization of types of units seems various; I've yet to find any consistent guide, and have been rather inconsistent myself. You're right about "OP"; my error came from working with a reduced image. Which, by the way, reminds me: that image, being essentially a map, I think should be large enough to read the labels without having to go to the image. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:35, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I made some changes under "Municipal water supply". Principal thing to note is grouping citations into a single note rather than multiple notes, avoiding those annoying trains of [1][2][3] links. In this case the resulting note looks a little odd because one of those citations is full. Moving that to References and substituting a short cite will make it look alright. I leave it to you whether you want to merge the other notes, or unmerge this one. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:50, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Opinion here, more than two cites at the end of the sentence do look a little awkward, but in-sentence citations draw attention to a specific fact that is likely to be challenged and kind of invite a rebuttal. WP:CITEFOOT doesn't say not to put them mid-sentence but does say "it is usually sufficient to add the citation to the end of the sentence or paragraph". Brianhe (talk) 03:06, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Also, at least one of these globs of footnotes will be mitigated when I (or someone else) write the article Chehalis Gap, and can move several citations there. Brianhe (talk) 14:39, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  I don't know how another article would serve to reduce the number of citations here. If material is moved, sure, but any material included here needs to be cited here. (And my somewhat superficial opinion is that the material now present is relevant, and is properly retained.)
  Strictly speaking that would be "more than two notes" that looks awkward. This widespread notion that each citation must have its own note is quite unfounded, and unfortunate in the confusion it causes. While some editors and authorities prefer having all the note links at the end of the section, others prefer having each note directly following the material it applies to (typically following a clause). That it might attract attention (in not being huddled with the rest of the flock?) and possibly challenged should not be an issue (perhaps should be a feature!) because all citations should be adequate for a challenge. (If not, it is weak, and should be challenged. Hiding a citation to avoid a challenge suggests that it is weak.) The burden of proof is on the originating editor, and if s/he can't be troubled to show which citation applies where, or where to find the specific passage (i.e., specify page or section numbers), then I'm generally inclined to consider the verification as failed, or at the best, incomplete. If the citation/source are good, then I'm more inclined to say "bring it on", we're good.
  So I'll lean on you a little bit in these respects, but if after consideration (and at least ten pages of points and authorities? :-) you're not yet convinced, that's fine. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:44, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  P.S. Regarding "groundwater limited in quantity and quality": you should cite Sceva, as he is the authority for that point. No particular page number, as mentions this throughout. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:52, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It's the statement "a gap in coastal mountains exists causing an "anti" rain shadow" that I think could be moved, with the four supporting cites, to Chehalis Gap, and this article could just say the Gap allows moisture into the Puget Sound interior without bending over backwards to explain why. I went back and looked at the group you created, and it looks OK. Stylistically I'm not a huge proponent of either way, just feel that cites in mid-sentence should be used judiciously for facts more likely to be challenged, as they cause a disruptive reading experience. — Brianhe (talk) 01:36, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well before Wikipedia there were editors that prefer having the footnote numbers only at the end of the sentence, because it is neater. I think neatness in this regard should yield to to clarity, in having the footnote number adjacent to the material being noted. An additional consideration is that "end of sentence" can change as sentences are split or joined; this can cause the notes to wander away into other sentences. I vaguely recall some debates on whether mid-sentence links and such "cause a disruptive reading experience", but I find that quite uncompelling. A little bracketed number is hardly disruptive, and reminds me of being told that placing a penny on rail might de-rail a train. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:04, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Panoramic view[edit]

I've been experimenting with a full-width panaoramic view. (Using an available pic, anticipating a better view some time in the future.) I like the concept generally, but don't know how best to set it up. Taking out the previous lead image helps to consolidate the white-space. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:50, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Got a good panoramic view this morning from QA, will be uploading it "real soon now". ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:55, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It's "now"! And new panoramic view is installed, with imagemap. Though there may be some adjustments needed. One particular point needs resolution: is the ridge in front of Gold Mountain Peak 1330, or Peak 1320? We should make a determination, then make it consistent across all articles. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:50, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nice panorama. I included the peak viewfinder site in the caption. According to it, just out of frame would be South Mountain in the Satsop Hills over 60 miles away. Re 1320 vs 1330: (you mean in front of Green Mountain right?) there doesn't seem to be a "right" answer here as the maps are ambiguous as to the actual elevation. Google hits for each is about the same and very low. So: personal preference, peakbagger or Lists of John? I have a very weak preference for peakbagger as the "local" authority. — Brianhe (talk) 01:33, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Stop press. Five-foot resolution Kitsap County GIS LiDAR data rendered as 3D map is online here: [1]. It looks like there's actually a 1340-1345 ft. peak at x=1162912.15 ft y=213712.42 ft (47°34′09.9432″N 122°46′04.2433″W / 47.569428667°N 122.767845361°W / 47.569428667; -122.767845361). So ... Lists of John's 1330 feet is closest to the new "truth". — Brianhe (talk) 02:26, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, between Green Mtn. and the watershed. 1320/1330 could be the difference in mapping pre- and post-logging. Or even GPS readings. Or what various intrepid off-trail summiters thought was the summit. Just as I was going to shout "let's go for lidar!" you got there. (BTW, that's an Autocad file — perhaps you have Autocad?) So as we are in a position to make a determination of broad and lasting significance, how should we proceed: 1) Use a new label based on our best estimate? 2) Go with the best existing label?
Re De Ferranti 2005: I've seen that gif before, but it's not especially useful. Certainly wasn't used here, so I am going to remove it. If the sources for identifying the peaks need be cited it would be peakfinder.org (which is excellent), and various maps. I'm not fully inclined to citing the maps, but I may mention peakfinder for the readers' edification. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 00:17, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think it would be confusing to start using a name we just made up, also not sure but this might violate WP:OR. It makes more sense to use the existing label closest to the new measurement, i.e. Peak 1330, and make a notation about the differences.
De Ferranti would be a good EL for the article if you don't mind. — Brianhe (talk) 19:22, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm fine with 1330, for the reasons you cited. I'm somewhat set against De Ferranti, even as an external link, as I just don't see that is useful or adds anything not to be had from Peak Finder. I see the direction parameter for PF doesn't work; I may write to them if about that if I get some time. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 04:20, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, check this: I've managed (an epic effort) to grab and massage some elevation data, so I can do 3-d views, from any pov. Some aspects are much clearer than could be ascertained from the contours or shaded-relief. E.g., the Peak 1320/1330 question could be simple matter of which "peak": it's definitely a ridge, with as many as four peakish points. (I think that ridge needs a definite name.) And it looks like the imagemaps need some adjustment. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:27, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. Even better, I managed to get some contours on that ridge, and determined that of the five peaks the highest is the next to last one on the north end, at a tad over 405 metres (1,329 ft). This with 5-meter contours. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:44, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Misc.[edit]

I think you're trying over-hard to work in "Chehalis Gap". I was reminded of this this past weekend on seeing a book on PNW weather, and it did not mention this. This term seems to be restricted mainly to some of the local weather blogs, and thus lacks adequate notability. For this article I think it would be sufficient to say that storms proceeding down the coast tend to send a lot of moisture around the south end of the Olympics, which the Blue Hills intercept. Also, I don't know that Spada and Chester Morse need to be mentioned; that other localities have access to mountain reservoirs doesn't seem relevant to anything here. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:21, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe true on the first point. More research would bear this out; however it was prevalent in several outdoors guides indexed by Google Books. However, I think it is very valuable to put Bremerton's water supply in context. It is unique as a medium-large city in the state that draws the majority of its supply from a reservoir not fed by snowpack. Without this context there is little to inform the reader why the reservoir is worth talking about. The city with its population and industrial base have a fascinating relationship to the very topography we're describing in the article that few of them are probably even aware of. The interaction of the Blue Hills and Chehalis Gap are arguably why the Kitsap Peninsula is not a low-population area more akin to the San Juan Islands. The comparison to Cascades reservoirs (or Lake Cushman) tells part of the story why. – Brianhe (talk) 05:53, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe this source can help drive the point, contrasting Bremerton to most other Western U.S. cities: "In the western United States, most water arrives in winter storms, which swoop in from the Pacific and dump snow atop the region’s mountain ranges. Mountain snowpack serves as the West’s water tower, and over the past century Westerners have built hundreds of dams to catch and store snowmelt as it fills the region’s rivers in spring." from National Geographic — Brianhe (talk) 06:24, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think the Navy is why central Kitsap Peninsula is not a low-population area, and particularly the Yard; the availability of water being an enabler, not a cause. I agree it is a fascinating situation, which warrants some explanaton. But in regards of the source of the wet air I think you don't need to go beyond the storms blowing in "thorugh the gap between the Olympic Mountains and the Willapa Hils (called the Chehalis Gap) ...", leaving any further explanation of that to the other article.
Likewise, mentioning the mountain reservoirs of Everett, Seattle, Tacoma, and even Port Townsend certainly establishes that some cities rely on mountain reservoirs, but not that most (?) localities in the region do, which is rather tangential itself. The main point is that the Peninsula does not have such access, which is sort of "blue skyish".
Took a look this morning, but the scattering of snow didn't really change the view. I have gotten interested in extracting some elevation data to create a manipulable image, but there's a bit of a "learning hill" to ascend. By the way, I suspect you have Autocad; can it read ArcGIS shapefiles? ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:44, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No time for a full reply right now. Got the free DWG viewer here: [2]. Brianhe (talk) 23:49, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No good: Autocad is Windooze only. I suspect it doesn't handle shapefiles anyway. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 00:17, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

J.: 1) Concerning the significance of the Chehalis Gap. It's mentioned quite a bit in serious writing about meteorology. "Local weather blogs" is kind of downplaying the importance of Cliff Mass, Jeff Renner, and Steve Pool isn't it? Each one a published author per citations at Chehalis Gap. Not sure what their (inter)national impact is but they also have a Puget Sound audience in the millions via TV and radio. 2) Won't fight you on the issue of what drives Kitsap population, it's kind of a Gedankenexperiment at any rate. One does wonder what the Navy would do if they didn't acquire water from the municipal gov't, and had to fight for groundwater rights. Maybe a desalinization plant... Anyhow what can I do to get the article ready to publish? If you think it's critical, I can move the stuff about other city reservoirs somewhere else. — Brianhe (talk) 22:29, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Let me go through and change all the Peak 1320 references to Peak 1330 per the discussion above (any minute now), and I'd say it's close enough to roll. I'm not at all against citing our local weather experts, though we should tread carefully in regard to the use of blogs. Regarding mention of the other reservoirs: it just seems to me to be irrelevant detail. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 19:44, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I generally prefer to use books as sources, then journals, then newspapers, then websites, then blogs last. But AFAIK this is just a personal prejudice. Blogs are considered reliable sources if they are created by established experts who have published elsewhere, per WP:SPS. -- Brianhe (talk) 20:36, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The key thing is to "exercise caution". When using a blog there is a greater need to show that the author is reliable.
I worked on the 1320 labeling, including a note why we are going with 1330. But it's not properly cited, particularly for the lidar datum. I tried to use the National Elevation Database, but that didn't work. Tried some other places, with no luck. Tried to check the PeakFinder url, and this updated browser I'm using keeps insisting on going to South Peak -- Alaska!
I also looked for how to put the panoramic view into something like {{wide image}} so it will fill the page. But that doesn't seem to integrate with the imagemap. I'm frustrated enough to lower the bar. Let's say "good enough" and promote. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:05, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Done! There's no time limit on making it "even better", as they say. — Brianhe (talk) 23:35, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yup. Could use more attention on the references, but likely better than the average 'pedia article as it stands. I am still puzzling out exactly what we are looking at in the view. I have figured out how to get 3-D images from a DEM map, which could be a great exploration tool, and possible future graphic. And my photographer friend found the article interesting enough to consider visiting the place, so perhaps next spring we can a better "recreation" image. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:05, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Blue Hills (Washington). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:06, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Article Class[edit]

I have rated this article as C-class. With some improvements to style, I think this will be a B-class article soon. Citations are also a bit clunky and could use review.Carmelator (talk) 03:07, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Blue Hills (Washington). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:03, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Blue_Hills_(Washington)&oldid=1200204260"