This article could really use a few good photos -- my Yellowstone pictures are all pretty lousy, and there doesn't seem to be much available from nps.gov. If anyone out there has a few good shots of Old Faithful, Mammoth Hot Springs, the animals, or anything else that captures what Yellowstone is all about then they're very much needed. -- Wrh2 04:35, 19 Jun 2005 (EDT)
I just got back from Yellowstone last week. It was amazing and fabulous. We were able to participate in three ranger-led tours, so I feel up to date with our information. I can improve on the captions of two photos:
The calcite terraces at Mammoth Hot Springs. These springs flourished with water until the late 1970s, but are currently dry.
The calcite terraces at Mammoth Hot Springs. The activity of the springs changes from day to day, with some drying up for a time while others become active.
Lone Star geyser erupting, Check at Old Faithful Visitor Center for times
Lone Star geyser erupting. The Old Faithful Visitor Center predicts times for eruptions of several large geysers, but this list changes from time to time. <When we were there last week, Lone Star was not one of the geyers among the 6 being currently predicted. It all relates to which geysers are independent of the others. Geysers that function as a group are not predictable, and this seems to from time to time.>
I wonder if the Yellowstone article See: section should be divided into regions, because there are just so many things to see in the park, and there is such a variety of things to see.
I'm actually having a similar problem with the Grand Teton National Park article, in that it's hard to define what to see. I don't think Grand Teton is quite diverse enough to split into regions, but Yellowstone certainly could be explained that way.
Alternatively, Yellowstone could be organized by types of sights: geysers, hot springs, waterfalls, etc. -- Mikito 20:06, 19 Jun 2005 (EDT)
From an organizational standpoint it seems best to group things by location, so I took a stab at it using info from http://www.nps.gov/yell/planvisit/areaplanners/index.htm. Edit away if you've got different ideas. If things get too out of hand we can break the article into districts, but at the moment it seems manageable. -- Wrh2 02:04, 20 Jun 2005 (EDT)
I just added some info following your setup. The way you have it arranged by area (Mammoth, Norris, etc.) is pretty much the same as how I would have done it. -- Mikito 18.104.22.168 10:35, 20 Jun 2005 (EDT)
Hi Mikito. Great work thus far on this article. One point of confusion though is the statement "As of June 2005, Old Faithful was erupting every 92 minutes 90% of the time and every 62 minutes the other 10% of the time". As it is currently written it sounds like the geyser either erupts exactly each 62 minutes or else exactly each 92 minutes, rather than between 62 and 92 minutes, with an average interval of 90 minutes. See http://www.nps.gov/yell/tours/oldfaithful/oldfaith.htm for one of many sets of (differing) statistics on eruption frequency. -- Wrh2 20:49, 27 Jun 2005 (EDT)
OK, I was paraphrasing from what a ranger said during my visit. The ranger went on to say that their forecasts give about 10 minutes of leeway on each side of the forecast. He jokingly excused this by saying that they try to be "accurate but not precise". -- Mikito 20:53, 27 Jun 2005 (EDT)
I've just changed it again to say that "as of June 2005, Old Faithful had an average eruption cycle of about 91 minutes". -- Mikito 21:02, 27 Jun 2005 (EDT)
I forgot to mention that the ranger said that Old Faithful was very strange for a geyser, in that it erupts every 92 minutes (give or take 10 minutes) 90% of the time, and every 62 minutes (give or take 10 minutes) the other 10% of the time, with almost no variation in between. Given that amount of leeway, I can see how they can claim to make accurate predictions. Even so, I think it is odd for a geyser to have two such well-defined intervals for eruptions rather than a continuous spectrum of timings. -- Mikito 21:12, 27 Jun 2005 (EDT)
The "give or take 10 minutes" info makes the wording much, much clearer so I've added your statement above (nearly verbatim) back into the article. -- Wrh2 04:16, 28 Jun 2005 (EDT)
As it stands, the current wording is fine with me. I wanted to get across two main ideas: 1) that Old Faithful doesn't run exactly like clockwork, and 2) that Old Faithful has not one but two ranges of eruption timings, which is quite unusual. -- Mikito 11:26, 28 Jun 2005 (EDT)
Rigorously speaking, it isn't correct that it "erupts every 92 minutes (give or take 10 minutes)" but rather that the time of the next eruption can be predicted to within about 10 minutes, if the duration of the previous eruption is known. The actual variation in interval from eruption to eruption is somewhat longer than "give or take 10 minutes." See this reference for details. Probably not worth changing at this point, unless there begin to be complaints about misinformation. (Incidentally, I've added some stuff on other "predictable" geysers.) -- Bill-on-the-Hill 20:36, 18 Sep 2005 (EDT)
Typically "star" articles are those that the community feels can compete with any other travel guide's article; the text has to be good, the listings have to be complete, etc. At a minimum this article needs a Wikitravel-style map, the article needs some re-organization to be more readable and better indicate what the regions of the park are, etc. See Wikitravel:Star articles and Wikitravel:Article status for further details. -- Ryan • (talk) • 21:54, 27 October 2008 (EDT)