Talk:Mima mounds

Theories section probably copyvio
The "theories" section seems to be a clone of http://ims.ode.state.oh.us/ODE/IMS/Assessment/Web_Content/CER_AI_200805_GR08_37.doc (Ohio Department of Education). I will alert the anon contributor and remove it if no satisfactory reply. -- Brianhe (talk) 13:36, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Edits by G310pjz and others seem to have corrected this since my original alert. Brianhe (talk) 18:51, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Low quality, lacking citations
The whole article is rather badly written for an encyclopedia, with many questions and useless notes. It feels very much like an article from some kind of mystery magazine, with lacking references, reported speech, quotes from shady "geopgraphers" and "former geologists" as well as questions at the end of an paragraph to create suspense. I altered most of which was unbearable, but the article is still lacking sources. A lot. --80.171.59.45 (talk) 07:54, 25 February 2009 (UTC)


 * The corny tone has been improved since February. If issues with tone still exist please point them out. The refimprove tag has been retained for several unreferenced claims. -- Brianhe (talk) 06:00, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

There are several quite blatant factual errors in this article. For example the claim that "One of the more popular theories was hatched by Andrew Berg of Spokane, ...." is completely incorrect. Every since it was published, this theory has found little, if any favor, with and lacks any support among geologists, physical geographers, and other Earth scientists. This theory is only popular among a minority of authors of popular articles, who need something to spice up / sensationalize what they are publishing to make them more interesting to either their readers or editors, and some fringe catastrophists. The two most popular theories for the origin of pimple (Mima) mounds are the burrowing animal (gopher) and copice (nebka) mound / eolian theory for their origin as illustrated by the abstracts in [http://gsa.confex.com/gsa/2008AM/finalprogram/session_22164.htm ''T143. The Origin of Mima Mounds and Similar Micro-Relief Features: Multidisciplinary Perspective''], Session No. 172, 2008 Geological Society of America Annual Meeting.

This article is need of a significant amount of rewriting based on peer-reviewed published papers and books and less emphasis on popular web pages and newspaper articles of questionable reliabilityPaul H. (talk) 21:15, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

The sentence:"Within the northwestern United States, they are typically part of what is commonly known as hog-wallow landscape." should be removed because the term "hog wallows" was primarily used to describe landforms caused by expansive clays in Texas and Mississippi and then in other parts of the country. These landforms are now called "gilgai" but the use of the term "hog wallows" actually predates "gilgai." If there is a convincing argument to expand the meaning of this term I have not seen it. In addition I am changing the phrase expansive silts to expansive clays. There is no such thing as expansive silts. I am also clarifying the association with expansive soils as being related with landforms called gilgai and hogwallows that are similar to mima mounds. I will give someone a chance to object before delete the sentence in question. Maxeng (talk) 04:36, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Pronunciation guide
The two pronunciations given for Mima do not match. The correct pronunciation should be determined and given in IPA only. --Paulieglott (talk) 18:27, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
 * These sources agree that the first syllable is "MY-":
 * http://blogs.secstate.wa.gov/FromOurCorner/index.php/2009/05/mystery-of-mima-mounds/
 * http://www.solanolandtrust.org/documents/JepsonBrochure.doc
 * This pronunciation matches my recollection of what the local people say. I think that's what the IPA currently denotes in the article, but I'm not positive I'm reading it correctly. Brianhe (talk) 19:03, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

This Seattle Times article also confirms the pronunciation: http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/travel/2008035378_onlywa06mima.html.

The IPA is indeed correct; I am removing the incorrect pronunciation guide. --Paulieglott (talk) 05:48, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Vernal Pools and Shrinking and Swelling of Clays
Both of these section seem to be complete non-sequiturs.

Water pools on the water's surface and evaporates. So what? How does that produce mounds of gravel? Are we implying that the gravel is dissolved in the water? I can't see anything at all linking perched water table to mounds. And in what sense is it coincidental that mounds are located in Washington and Oregon? What does this coincide with?

A clay bed swells when it is wet, so how does that produce a mound of gravel? Silt is more penetrable than clay is, but since the area around the base of the mima mounds are a loamy soil.....??? Since it is more "penetrable" what happens? The sentence doesn't even end.Mark Marathon (talk) 22:14, 21 September 2012 (UTC)


 * The inclusion of vernal pools under theories of pimple mounds makes no scientific sense at all. Vernal pools are simply seasonal wetlands that occupy shallow depressions of a variety of types and origins including the intermound depressions between Mima Mounds. The association of some vernal pools with Mima Mounds does not indicate anything about the origin of Mima Mounds. They only indicate that depressions, which are occasionally filled with water, exist between Mima Mounds. Although there are seemingly innumerable theories about the origin of pimple mounds, "vernal pools" is not one of them. The "Shrinking and Swelling of Clays" section does not make much sense either and needs to be completely revised and rewored. Paul H. (talk) 12:51, 22 September 2012 (UTC)