Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Lake Estancia/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 28 February 2022 [1].

Lake Estancia

[edit]
Nominator(s): Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 14:37, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a prehistoric lake in the Estancia Valley of New Mexico, a state in the USA. Like many valleys in the western USA, changes in precipitation and evaporation patterns caused the Estancia Valley to fill with water during the last Ice Age: Lake Estancia. It is now gone but its deposits have been used to reconstruct past climates for the region. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 14:37, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Funk

[edit]
Does a picture like this[3] give an impression of the general are?
Maybe, but it's looking away from the area that the former lake covered. Also, vegetation during the lake stages was quite different from that today; I am not sure how representative it would be. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 13:40, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The intro and article bodies should be able to function as separate, self-contained texts, though, so both presentations, abbreviations, links, etc, should be repeated in both. FunkMonk (talk) 13:15, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think I got them. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 19:04, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It's usually the "French" looking spellings that are UK English, such as "colour/flavour/favour" instead of "color" etc., "catalogue" instead of "catalog", "metre" instead of "meter". FunkMonk (talk) 13:15, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
In that case I think this is done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 19:04, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "no present-day reports of fish in the Estancia basin are known" Does that mean there are permanent water bodies still other than lakes, which you say don't exist any more? Otherwise, it would go without saying?
    There are creeks and springs, yes. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:05, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Can this be mentioned, if it isn't already? FunkMonk (talk) 13:15, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that (beyond the playas) they are ever discussed in the context of the lake. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 19:04, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good, could the sources for the info be added to the file description on Commons? I'll continue the review soon. FunkMonk (talk) 13:15, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@FunkMonk: I made some tweaks. Let me know what you think -- Guerillero Parlez Moi 16:24, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think it looks good now. FunkMonk (talk) 16:44, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "There were mammoths occurred at the lake" Specify what species of mammoth if the sources do? I'd assume it was the Columbian mammoth.
    It seems like, but oddly I can't find any explicit statement to that effect. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:55, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "is represented by Rancholabrean species" Perhaps make this clearer, by something like "represented by species that lived during the Rancholabrean stage of the Pleisotcene?
    The problem with that is that Rancholabrean means both a chronology and a fauna, and here it's used more like a fauna. Might Goldberg, Paul; Holliday, Vance T.; Mandel, Rolfe D. (2017). "Stratigraphy". Encyclopedia of Geoarchaeology. Springer Netherlands: 913–916. doi:10.1007/978-1-4020-4409-0_2. work as a definition. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:55, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If you can work something out from that, would be good to have a little bit of definition? FunkMonk (talk) 11:12, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Added a note. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 13:37, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator comment

[edit]

Approaching four weeks and just the single general review. Unless further movement towards a consensus to promote within the next couple of days I am afraid that this is liable to be archived. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:17, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Gog the Mild:Imma ping the editors of the last three FACses if I may. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:38, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sure. So long as the notification is neutral. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:50, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 11:59, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I've got a lot on my plate, so no promises, but I might be able to leave some comments. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 12:02, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
sorry- this one's a bit out of my depth, and digging into it would take a bit more time than I've got. My apologies, but it looks like you're cruisin' regardless! theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 05:23, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Kusma

[edit]

Was pinged on my talk page, happy to provide a review over the next few days. First observations:

More to follow once I get to actually read the text :) —Kusma (talk) 12:55, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • I don't think that there are many better places; I tried to work on the caption however. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 12:38, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Slightly better. First map still needs a caption for those who don't recognise New Mexico by its shape. ("Position of Lake Estancia in New Mexico").
    Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:15, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is an interesting article, but a bit difficult to read. There is a bit much jargon for my taste, and some sentences are overly complicated. For a jargon example: "pliocene" and "pleistocene" just mean "long ago" to me; I have no idea whatsoever how long ago. Try to gloss some of these words so the reader does not have to navigate away from the article to get an idea.
    I did with some of these terms. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 12:38, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks. With the given precision, a footnote is probably fine.
    But please make the lead and body footnotes go to the same place. Look at Template:Efn for documentation; I think you can use a name parameter or something to reuse them. —Kusma (talk) 23:37, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    That's done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:13, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lead: Do we need all these precise numbers for the water levels in this overview? Also, these are probably heights above sea level or something, so would need context of how high up the land is there.
    I've removed these numbers; that's really information for those who want details. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 12:38, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think the lead section is sorted in the best way. We currently have location, trouts, water supply, formation, history, context. The trouts are particularly out of place, but generally this could be improved.
    Well, the idea is description [including fauna], chronology and causes. I don't know of any better structure. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 12:38, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I guess it depends whether you see the trout as part of the "description" or of the "history".
    I personally treat that as "description". Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:15, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The trout thingy reads a bit like a random factoid right now, and I'm not too pleased with the flow of the first paragraph of the article. Moving the trout to the end of the first paragraph might help. —Kusma (talk) 23:37, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I did a somewhat bigger rewrite. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:13, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Geography: How far south of Santa Fe?
    Source doesn't say that, and since we have the distance from Albuquerque which is a major city that seems fine for me. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 12:38, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The structure "70km SE of Albuquerque and S of Santa Fe" makes me expect a distance also from Santa Fe. After looking at a msp, I would suggest just to drop the mention of Santa Fe.
    Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:15, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "... northernmost part of the lakebed ... western and southern lakebeds" is there one lakebed or are there several?
    One; changed the numeral to clarify. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 12:38, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I would expect "western part of the lakebed" but you may be right that it is fine. While I'm here: "formerly the New Mexico Central Railroad and the Atchison, Topeka and Santa Fe Railway also did" isn't totally clear in what they did. "In the past [when?], the New Mexico Central Railroad and the Atchison, Topeka and Santa Fe Railway also crossed the western and southern lakebeds" would be clearer (if it is true).
    Recast that. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:15, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The lake was about 56 km wide: when was that?
    Clarified. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 12:38, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you like to say things like "the easternmost pluvial lake in Southwestern North America" I am sure you will join my campaign to rename the Siegerland as "Südostnordrheinwestfalen".
    Yeah, I didn't love this formulation either but the problem is that "easternmost" is still west of the Mississippi so we can't say "easternmost" without a qualifier. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 12:38, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Distinct[19] shoreline landforms... " is this really the best place for the footnote?
    No; moved it down. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 12:38, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The water level mesurements are quite precise given that they are presented with "may have reached" and "possibly". "Early Lake Estancia" is used as a time period without explaining when that was. "Lake Willard" is also apparently a time period from the way it is used in the sentence, but it is also a highstand? The way you conflate times and lakes here is almost incomprehensible without looking at the map.
    Problem is that the sources don't bother with error bars. I've rewritten this a bit to focus on the time period. One question I am pondering is: Stage or stages? It's typically not known whether a shoreline was due to one or two stages. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 12:38, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Some formed estuaries" -> better "Some streams formed estuaries"; for a second, I thought the subject of the sentence were the (formed) estuaries.
    Clarified. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 12:38, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "... deposits of deltas; the former generated a fan delta" the former what?
    Specified. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 12:38, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is Torreon Creek an extant body of water or just some former creek still called "creek" gazillion years after last having water?
    It seems like it still exists, although it carries water infrequently. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 12:38, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    OK, then it's fine the way it is written.
  • Lacustrine deposits and post-lacustrine dunes: I can't tell whether the section contains anything related to "lacustrine". Try to reduce the jargon. Also, is it "lowstand" or "low-stand"?
    Went ahead and glossed "lowstand" everywhere since unlike "highstand" it's not defined in the lead. And replaced "lacustrine" with "lake" since that's what it means. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 12:38, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks.
  • Gypsum dunes: sounds cool. Is the Czaja et al citation there to tell us that gypsum dunes are rare? Perhaps you can simplify the sentence structures and get rid of the "today". ("The Estancia Dune Field is a X square km dune field in Estancia Valley. It consists of gypsum dunes, a rare type of dunes. These dunes were generated when the lake dried up and gypsum was blown away by the wind" or something).
    That's much better; I've put it in. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 12:38, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "lunette dunes": I had an idea what that could be until I clicked the link. Which architect was involved? And what is a "domal landform"?
    That's all done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 12:38, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I think you should change the lunette link to lunette (which mentions the geological meaning) or remove it.
    Changed. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:15, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hydrology: "centripetal pattern of streams" does this just mean "streams flowing in from all directions"?
    Yes. Not sure how to spell that out without distracting the reader. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 12:38, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Link watershed to drainage basin to unconfuse people thinking that a watersheds are exactly the points that do not belong to a single drainage basin. Are the glaciers relevant here i.e. should we have expected them? Manzano Mountains (which I guess should be linked here even if it was linked earlier) does not mention any glaciers.
    I think yes, given that the lake existed during the ice age and other such lakes had glaciers in their watersheds. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 12:38, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "lower temperatures and thus slower evaporation" lower than what and slower than what?
    Specified. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 12:38, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Groundwater leakage may have become significant at high water levels, thus stabilizing various highstands at a similar elevation" ok, I'm lost. Is the water leaking into the lake or out of the lake? How does that stabilize the high water level at a time of high water level? What elevation is similar to what else?
    Specified. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 12:38, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Much better.
  • "Foraminifera data suggest that the salinity of the lake fluctuated between hypersaline and freshwater;[47] initially it was thought that it never became a freshwater lake" Can you simplify this? "The lake was at times hypersaline and at times freshwater. This was confirmed by foraminifera data that disproved earlier an hypotheses that the lake was never freshwater".
    That is clearer; took it in. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 12:38, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overflow: "each of these basins were occupied by separate closed lakes[59] although evidence for the existence of such a lake in the Pinos Wells basin is scant" There was a lake in the Pinos Wells basin, but there is not enough evidence to conclude that there was a lake in the Pinos Wells basin?
    Cleared this up. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 12:38, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Yup.
  • Climate: This is the first time that I learn (after the lead) that the existence of Lake Estancia is connected to the Ice Ages. (There was little indication so far how long ago things had happened). A sentence like "Lake Estancia is only one among several lakes in New Mexico that formed or expanded during the ice ages" might not be totally out of place in the "Lake" section.
    Maybe, but the problem I see is that this would be putting climate information in the lake section. I think it depends whether we assume that readers go through the page top to bottom or just hop to the section that interests them; in the former case moving it up makes sense, in the latter not really. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 12:38, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    As the history section has been moved, this is probably moot. (Ideally to be confirmed by a fresh reader!)
  • "Precipitation may have increased around and south of the latitude of Lake Estancia, while it decreased north of it." was that how the weather changed during the LGM? I do not fully understand over which period of time this increase/decrease happened.
    Spelled out that it was during the LGM. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 12:38, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The last paragraph of the section is a bit of a mess. The conclusion to the scientific debate, "Rising lakes have been attributed to [various things]. The timing has been debated", which is a bit lacking in actors, is "the area of such lakes is the function of the inflow/recharge of the lake basin minus any leakage divided through the evaporation rate", which doesn't seem all that connected. Also, why do you divide the leakage through the evaporation rate? And doesn't this depend on the shape of the lake basin?
    I've lifted that last sentence into a footnote; it was indeed misplaced. I know about the actor issue but there are too many of them to spell them out all. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 12:38, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    OK.
  • Biota: "There were mammoths occurred" copyedit into English
    Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 12:38, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The fish was present in the lake during its freshwater stages, except very late during their history" The history of the fish or of the freshwater stages? Does this mean the fish disappeared during a late freshwater stage?
    Hmm, not sure myself - I've pulled it. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 12:38, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Alternatively, the trout lived " if this is speculation, it should be "may have lived". The sentence also makes it look like the trout were captured in the Rio Grande.
    Rewrote this, but can I have a second opinion on the tense? It looks a bit off to me. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 12:38, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Agreed, it is a bit off. "According to an alternative theory, the trout could have been living..."? While we're here, try to do something about the duplicate "it appears to be" at the start of the paragraph.
    Rewrote this. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:15, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • History ... : We have had some bits about history before, as we are talking about what happened to a lake during a couple dozen millennia. But "either during the Pliocene, early Pleistocene or middle Pleistocene" would be so much easier to understand if combined with an "approximately Y trillion years ago".
    That'd done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 12:38, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Consider moving the History section much earlier (I feel like I finally understand what you are talking about).
    Bah, OK, that is done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 12:38, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks. I think this makes it much easier when reading linearly.
  • "Lake Estancia may have desiccated 134,000 - 121,000 years ago" is followed in the next subsection by the contradicting information "The record indicates that first shallow lakes formed between 45,000 and 40,000 years ago". Who recorded this?
    Done and done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 12:38, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Apparently I misunderstand the word "LGM". It sounds like a point in time, but apparently it is a couple thousand years long?
    Yes, it's a time period. Specified that in the lead. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 12:38, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Laurentide Ice Sheet [..] forced the jet stream southward" ice sheets can influence the jet stream? Interesting.
    Yes. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 12:38, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "ice discharge into the ocean was increased and shut down the heat transport" shut down completely? The Heinrich event page is much more careful.
    Rewrote this. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 12:38, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'an event christened the "Big Dry"' who calls it that? Is that a word used only in the context of Lake Estancia or is it in wider use?
    A personal communication by a researcher, and the source itself is equivocal on whether it was limited to Estancia or not - but I indicated that it applies there. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 12:38, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mystery Interval is a redlink. Is this word in wide use and in which community?
    It is: Here. This source explains the etymology; does it warrant a note? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 12:38, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd say that's optional.
  • Drying up 8500 years ago should be mentioned in the lead.
    Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 12:38, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Lake Meinzer": is this a lake or a period in time when there was a lake?
    Such names usually mean both things. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 12:38, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Ok. Named for Oscar Edward Meinzer I guess?
    Yes. Linked that, by the way. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:15, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Anthropology: mention what "points" and "Folsom points" are
    Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 12:38, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Older research published in 1989 indicates that during the early and middle Wisconsin glaciation, there was no freshwater lake in the Estancia Valley." Several points. So all other research discussed in the article is post-1989? (This is the only time the age of some research is so explicitly mentioned). Is this research in contrast to what you said earlier? Or is it just additional information that during the Wisconsin glaciation, the lake was salty? What does this have to do with the anthropology?
    Ok this one's a tough one ... basically, this discusses an alternative view on the lake's history which hasn't been widely accepted. It has nothing to do with anthropology but the section discusses the scientific importance in general; I've sub-sectioned it. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 12:38, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Now easier on the brain.
  • '"Lake Willard" has yielded a date of 12,460 years' What type of object is "Lake Willard" in this sentence? I have thought so far that it meant either a lake, a highstand, or a period of time. Neither of these can yield a date. Please clarify.
    Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 12:38, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Clearer now.

Overall this appears well-researched (but I have not really looked at sources) but in need of improved writing. Too much unexplained jargon, too many sentences that are more difficult to parse than necessary. —Kusma (talk) 23:45, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from Kavyansh

[edit]

The nominator generously (and very neutrally) requested my comments on my talk page. More that happy to help! Following are few comments, nothing major. Most are just suggestions:

  • "1,939 meters (6,362 ft)" — Optional, but alike previous FAC, my concern yet remains that one quantity in written in full form, other is in abbreviation. I feel there should be consistency as to it being abbreviated or fully written.
    I tried spelling this out everywhere. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 18:53, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "presumably having reached it during a possible past overflowing stage." — In this case, I think we should have either 'presumably' or 'possible'. Having both looks bit repetitive, as they more-or-less mean same in this context.
    Removed the first; removing the other one would imply that it's certain that the lake overflowed. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 18:53, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "LGM" is never used again in the lead. Do we need to define the abbreviation?
    That's for the people who don't read top-to-bottom but rather lead-to-section. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 18:53, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the Last glacial maximum" — our article capitalizes "Last Glacial Maximum" (L, G, and M)
    Standardized to allcaps. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 18:53, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is a "clarification needed" tag in the lead in this version of the article.
    Yeah, but I am not exactly sure what the problem is. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 18:53, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "over sixty" — should be write sixth in number?
    See, I believe that such numbers are typically spelled out. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 18:53, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • This may be a difficulty of writing technical articles at FAC, but I do not understand the following terms: "Dog Lake Formation", "lowstands", "Deflation of the dry lakebed"
    I think "water level lowstand" is clearer? "Dog Lake Formation" is the name of a geological formation. "Excavation" may be clearer than "deflation". Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 18:53, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Based on foraminifera data, it appears that the salinity of the lake fluctuated between hypersaline and freshwater" — It appears to whom?
    Recast so that the foraminifera data are the actor. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 18:53, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • groundwater, sill, Rio Grande, Intertropical Convergence Zone, Younger Dryas, and ice age is overlinked.
    Un-overlinked. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 18:53, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Annual precipitation is less than 300 millimetres per year" — both "annual" and "per year"?
    Cut "Annual". Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 18:53, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Our article capitalizes "last glacial maximum"
    I think that's done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 18:53, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "oday gypsum dunes - a rare type of dune - occur in the Estancia Valley" — should these be em-dashes?
  • "Rising water levels in Southwestern North America - including Lake Estancia - have been variously attributed either to increased precipitation from storm track changes induced by continental glaciation or to decreased evaporation", "The exact timing of the highstands of Lake Estancia - during the LGM or during a warmer wetter period after the LGM - has also been debated" — same as above
  • "higher 41,000 - 38,000 years ago and lower 57,000 - 51,000 and 45,000 - 43,000 years ago" — same (en-dashes in this case). Please check this throughout the article.
    I admit I don't know anything about when to use em-dashes. I think there is a script, I'll see about it. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 18:53, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That is it. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 15:49, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I Support, pending minor formatting issues which can easily be fixed. Overall, excellent article on difficult technical subject. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 06:18, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from Femke

[edit]

No energy for a full review, but I was wondering if the climate section shouldn't use more modern sources.

  • Last year, two papers were published that cast doubt on the existence of the mid-Holecene temperature optimum (the more authorative one). I know it takes time for such findings to trickle down to publications on a local scale (or even into the relevant Wikipedia article), but I thought you may want to consider it.
    Aye, if memory serves "altithermal" is going a bit out of fashion but it's not completely dead. I think the problem is that there isn't really an accepted term for what comes between the Younger Dryas and the Neoglacial that could be used as a replacement. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 11:13, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The words climate oscillation are losing favour within the climate community for variability that isn't oscillatory/quasi-periodic. A quick post-2010 Google Scholar search indicates that Bølling–Allerød is now followed by the words "warming", "interstadial", "interval". Femke (talk) 17:35, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    That's done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 11:13, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Source review by A. C. Santacruz - Pass

[edit]
  • Can't find the measurement information in the source reference for the infobox, which I assume is this link rather than the one in the article. I've never seen a reference in an infobox like that though, so I'm unsure if it covers all the information in the infobox or just one measurement.
    I don't understand what the source is doing there - the info in the infobox is supposed to be traceable to information elsewhere in the article. I think it needs to be removed. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 12:48, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    And done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:19, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Antevs 1935 RS, backs statement it's cited for, although the phrases (Lake Tahoe is extraordinarily deep [...]. Lake Estancia is comparatively shallow [...]) might not support it use in b) of "considerably deeper", and might suggest just using comparatively instead. Of course, this is a bit nitpicky but thought I'd raise the point.
    Well, an "extraordinarily deep" lake is certainly "considerably deeper" than a "comparatively shallow" one, and Tahoe is deep. The "considerably" might be a problem; should they be removed? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 12:48, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I think that might be one way to go about it, certainly :) A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 18:07, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    And done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:19, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Allen & Anderson 2000 RS, backs statements it's cited for. In use c) I think the deposits also are in the "Cienega" draw from what I see in the map, but don't know enough about the subject to tell.
  • Menking et al. 2004 RS, backs statements it's cited for from what I can tell, but I don't understand the jargon enough for (or can't find the sentence) that backs e), but I'm entirely sure that's my error rather than it not being in the source).
    This link doesn't work for me. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:19, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Updated version is this one. Within the page cited there are references to the snowline decreasing, but I can't find the statement that says the riverflow increased due to the temperature change. It might be an issue of it being on another page of the source or me just not being able to parse the jargon. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 17:57, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Large, dry stream channels testify to much higher flows during the late Pleistocene Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 18:44, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Checks out :) Thanks for being patient with me, Jo-Jo Eumerus. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 19:18, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Take note that between you beginning the review I've actioned Kusma's points and added some sources in the process. Also, what do the numbers in this list refer to? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 12:48, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The numbers referred to citation numbers in this version of the article, and I'll check now for any sources added since then. I noted the numbers as a way to help myself keep track of where I was in the source review, but that probably should've been done in a subpage of my userpage and then moved here only the ones where I found issue (it's my first source review so I definitely did things inefficiently). Sources all seem reliable and appropriately cited, comments above are minor issues rather than mistakes of serious consequence.A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 18:07, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi A._C._Santacruz, can I take that as a pass for the source review? Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 00:02, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't realize I had to make that explicit. Source review passed, Gog the Mild. For my first source review it was kind of cool to kind of follow Jo-Jo Eumerus's research in this condensed, goal-oriented fashion. I would usually never read geography academia (even though my great-grandfather was a PhD in Basque Geology, which is in the same neighborhood) but I genuinely enjoyed the topic. Interesting stuff! A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 00:14, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Drive by comment

[edit]

There are some hyphens in the referencing which should be replaced with en dashes. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:42, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:31, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Buidhe

[edit]
  • I would only use present tense for features that are extant. The lake does not exist anymore so I would write, "Lake Estancia was a prehistoric lake in the Estancia Valley", "The lake was one of several pluvial lakes in southwestern North America" etc. Currently the article uses a mix of past and present tense which is jarring. (t · c) buidhe 11:39, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Did so, but it seems like most of the article already used past tense. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 12:18, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Buidhe, you happy? Gog the Mild (talk) 13:49, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
My comment has been addressed adequately, not supporting or opposing. (t · c) buidhe 20:53, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Lake_Estancia/archive1&oldid=1074577599"