Talk:Lake Atna

Lake Atna has been listed as one of the Geography and places good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. Review: July 5, 2021. (Reviewed version).

A fact from Lake Atna appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 5 February 2017 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows: Did you know... that a megaflood from ancient Lake Atna 17,000 years ago may have contributed to the devastation caused by the 1964 Alaska earthquake? A record of the entry may be seen at Wikipedia:Recent additions/2017/February. The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Lake Atna.

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

Lakes Low‑importance Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Alaska Low‑importance Geology Low‑importance Talk:Lake Atna 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.

This review is

transcluded from Talk:Lake Atna/GA1

. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Editoneer (talk · contribs) 08:30, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Editoneer (talk) 08:30, 30 June 2021 (UTC) Eek, I need to go for now, here's my decision so far. Editoneer (talk) 09:23, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Well-written, Broadness, Neutrality

• (ka, I feel that ( is misplaced.  Done
  • Fixed Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 19:22, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• dispersed, sadly links to a disambiguation page.  Done

• prominent, if this has the sense of "important" or "famous" then that sounds unneutral.  Done
  • Prominent has two meanings, the second is that it is easily visible. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 19:22, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• There's many words that show doubt, it's not confirmable?  Done
  • There's only so much we can gleam in facts from historical geographical works. Wikipedia voice can only say that is what we believe in my eyes. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 07:49, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• A. C. Spencer, are they mostly known for their abbreviation or you are able to write their name fully?  Done
  • That's all I've got from the source, I'm afraid. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 19:28, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• In 1901 (...) In 1957,, I believe [In year] is becoming too repeatable, do you believe that you are able to write and then in 1957 or somewhere along those lines?  Done
  • Yeah, seems reasonable. I've made some minor changes Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 07:49, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• (river) outlet as the river didn't have any way to flow?  Done
  • I'm not sure this is an improvement, During its early formation, the lake likely had no permanent outlet., so I suppose you could say "water outlet", or "river outlet", but I think that's pretty implied from the lake not having an outlet. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 07:49, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ah sorry, I wanted to confirm here if outlet here meant what I thought it did, there's no changes needed regarding this matter. Editoneer (talk) 08:53, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• dunes, what type of dunes?  Done
  • I have linked. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 07:49, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• river bluffs a what?  Done
  • "very steep and broad hill or small cliff, next to a river". Reasonably common geographical term. We don't have an article on it, just mentioned in River Bluff (disambiguation), which isn't a great target. If there's a better target, or way to explain, let me know. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 07:49, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Verifiability

• [5] is giving me a 404 error.  Done
  • Archived Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 07:55, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• [6] any link to be provided?  Done
  • It's a journal released in 1957, seems unlikely. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 07:55, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've found a link regarding the content [link blocked, it's from the site you took the information from], do you believe it's worth mentioning this book regarding the quote? Editoneer (talk) 08:53, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • This ref only covers: By 1957, geologists Oscar J. Ferrians and H.R. Schmoll concluded the basin had been resident to a large proglacial lake during the Wisconsin glaciation.. Citing the original journal is plenty. We don't neccesarily need online sourcing. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 09:13, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• [7] can't be accessed.  Done
  • Is covered by a doi and bbi code, these are paper journals, so it's likely the online version is just offline. I will look for a replacement url. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 07:55, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • I see, there's 2 links: ui.adsabs.harvard.edu and www.sciencedirect.com in this reference, are those it? Editoneer (talk) 08:53, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • Indeed, they cover an excerpt, but these are codes used to help people find the text (see bibcode and Digital object identifier). Not all sourcing has to be online. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 09:13, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • I acknowledge that, thanks! Editoneer (talk) 13:00, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• [21] 404.  Done
  • Archived. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 07:55, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Media

• Do not add the punctuation at the end of the files!  Done
  • What do you mean by this? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 07:43, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • I apologize, it appears I've misunderstood how punctuation works in media files. Here I was referring to the
      MOS:CAPFRAG, considering this, everything is fine, sorry! Editoneer (talk) 08:53, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply
      ]

Good job and good luck! Editoneer (talk) 13:59, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you for sticking along and completing the request quickly! I'm going to put the review on second opinion due to confidence issues. Editoneer (talk) 13:00, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Second opinion

Good review, good article. I've got but a few things to nitpick over:

• Later: Matanuska River, Susitna River, Tok River, and Copper River depending on period isn't completely sourced in the body. (from infobox)
  • I've identified which source actually says this, so I've added it to the infobox for now whilst I work out how to say this in proseBest Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 22:39, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Smith is listed in sources, and also in references (FN14), but less well formatted (not relevant to GA criteria)
  • Changed to a Harv ref. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 22:25, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• One flood may have contributed to the destruction caused by the 1964 Alaska earthquake. I had initially read the lead too fast, and assumed the lake flooded in 1964. I think this sentence would benefit from explaining quickly by what mechanism (Old deposits from a flood may have contributed ...(?) (and then caused by -> from to make the sentence shorter?).
  talk) 18:26, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • Reworded. I think that's what you were getting at. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 22:25, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oh wow, it's done already? Editoneer (talk) 08:26, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I thought your initial review was great. Nice and in-depth. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 08:44, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@

Femkemilene:, hello, if you are done with your second opinion please tell me. Editoneer (talk) 03:53, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply

]