Template:Did you know nominations/Stormy Lake (Alaska)

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Yoninah (talk) 22:38, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

Stormy Lake (Alaska)

(

)

Native fish had no defense against the introduced, aggressive pike

... that Stormy Lake had to be poisoned to remove invasive species not once but twice? Source: "Stormy Lake has been the home of two seperate efforts to remove invasive species.” [1]
- ALT1:... that ...?

Created by Beeblebrox (talk). Self-nominated at 19:35, 14 June 2018 (UTC).

QPQ done: Template:Did you know nominations/Gil Cisneros

The article is new and long enough, but it does not meet the verifiability criteria, i.e. it needs more inline citations. Most of it is completely unsourced Surtsicna (talk) 22:13, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

There’s actually nothing in there not reflected int he sources, but the way I added them did not really make it obvious, it was admittedly kind of haphazard. I’ll see if I can’t make it more clear. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:39, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

I believe I have rectified this issue. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:36, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

@Surtsicna: could you take another look and see if your concerns have been addressed? I added more inline cites and brought in an additional ref. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:41, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

All paragraphs are supposed to be completely referenced. I added a reference to one paragraph, having read all the sources. I could not find the source for the second paragraph, so I tagged it as unsourced. Another thing I am wondering about is whether this invasive species eradication program is the only thing to be said about the lake. Surely there should be something about its geology, hydrology, etc, and even biology beyond two invasive species. The focus on the invasive species was such that the article was included in Category:Invasive species - even though it is supposed to be about a lake. Yoninah recently reproved me, quite rightly so, for approving an article that had the same issue (which I had noted in the review). Surtsicna (talk) 16:33, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

I’d like to request a new reviewer please. The article is well-cited, I looked for the kind of data the reviewer is asking for and did not find it, and I don’t see any obligation for me to do so in order for it to meet DYK standards. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:08, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

For the second reviewer's reference, here is Yoninah's comment at Wikipedia talk:Did you know. Cwmhiraeth (and Johnbod?) disagreed, while Vanamonde93 agreed. This is the article in question. It ended up being pulled from the preparation area by Gatoclass. I think there is no point in promoting an article if the same thing is going to happen, but I gladly leave it to another reviewer. Surtsicna (talk) 21:29, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

I'd like to know roughly how big it is. Otherwise I don't have comprehensiveness concerns, & I agree these are sometimes being overdone nowadays. It's a lake, in Alaska, full of water, and fish - sometimes the wrong sort. Johnbod (talk) 21:36, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

The article now contains an infobox with a lot of useful information, the kind one would expect to find in an article about a lake: its inflows, outflows, islands, etc. Unfortunately, most of it is unsourced and found only in the infobox. I am honestly not sure if that is better than mentioning only the invasive species. If it could be cited, it would be spotless. Surtsicna (talk) 21:57, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

I completely agree with Surtsicna. Most articles about lakes at least say how big they are and what distance they are from a major landmark. I don't think much more needs to be added here to bring this up to start class, but more description of the lake does need to be added. Yoninah (talk) 22:14, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

You are asking me to produce something that I’ve already said I was unable to find. You have to understand that there are over 3 million lakes in Alaska, only about 3,197 of which even have a name. Major lakes in areas managed by the federal government usually have such data available, but this lake is managed by the state and my searches have not turned up any such data from them. I could add how far it is from the nearest town easily enough as that information is already in some of the source material.

As a named geographic feature it is in the realm of “automatic notability” but to my mind the thing that makes it worthy of DYK and of being anything beyond a permanent stub is that something important actually happened here and that is reflected in the hook. From what I’ve read the level of success they had with these techniques is fairly unheard of. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:05, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

Done I tried changing my search parameters, the ADF&G does in fact have a database, you just have to explicitly search for “Alaska lakes database”. I have added what data they had, which was limited to surface area and max depth. I also found a scan of an old survey document fromt he late 60’s that backs up some of the other details int he infobox. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:26, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

As in the case of the discussion linked by Sutrsicna, I think this shouldn't have a one-section structure when that section is not a complete overview of the topic. In this case, though, I feel more comfortable with the topic and so I've gone and added a lead myself. Regards, Vanamonde (talk) 04:56, 22 June 2018 (UTC) Vanamonde (talk) 04:56, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

This article is new enough and long enough and it is now looking good with its new lead section. When adding geographic information to such articles, I use the best map I can find as a reference. The article is sufficiently comprehensive for DYK (the invasive species information is what differentiates the lake from others in the area), the hook facts are sourced inline, the article is neutral and I detected no copyright issues. Good to go. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:21, 22 June 2018 (UTC)