Template:Did you know nominations/Fossil Lake (Oregon)

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 Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:38, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Fossil Lake (Oregon)

(

)

... that fossils of 23 mammal species including mammoth, dire wolf, giant ground sloth, pre-historic bison, camel, and horse have been found at Fossil Lake in south central Oregon?

Reviewed: St Luke's Church, Formby
Comment: Hook info comes from 3 sources: Referance #1 says mammoth and dire wolf fossils were found at Fossil Lake; Reference #3 says 23 mammal species including horse, camel, ground sloth, and mammoth fossils were found at the site; and Reference #6 (bottom of p. 2-66) identifies mammoth, sloth, camel, and bison fossils.

Created by Orygun (talk). Self nominated at 01:51, 10 August 2014 (UTC).

Done recently enough before nomination, long enough (>10,000 characters). --Walter Siegmund (talk) 16:03, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
Article is neutral and meets citation requirements except the number 23 in the hook phrase "fossils of 23 mammal species" seems to be supported only by one source, a photograph of an interpretive sign, that does not satisfy my reading of WP:RS in that it does not include author(s), publication date, or sources.[1]

I'd suggest a hook based on "The site has produced more Holocene fossils than any other location in the world except the La Brea Tar Pits in California", however, the source states "It is reported to be the richest site for [Holocene] fossils … outside of the La Brea Tar Pits in California".[2] That leaves a reader wondering about the credibility of that reporter. See WP:WEASEL for more.

A brochure states, "[Fossils of] hundreds of species of reptiles, birds, fish, and mammals have been identified."[3] But, again, no author, publication date or sources are cited. However, as a printed publication of an agency of the US Federal Government, it may qualify as a reliable tertiary source. As an aside, I'm impressed by the number of fossils of small animals, especially birds, recorded. These species have small delicate bones that are often poorly preserved in the fossil record. --Walter Siegmund (talk) 05:11, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

How about this alternate:

ALT 1: ... that fossils of mammoth, dire wolf, giant ground sloth, pre-historic bison, and camels have been found at Fossil Lake in south central Oregon?

I’ve taken out phase about "23 species" and reference to "horse" fossils since they were both based on the BLM interpretive sign. That means hook can be confirmed with Reference 1 and Reference 6 (see p. 2-66). Both are official United States Department of Interior/Bureau of Land Management documents. Ref #1 is BLM public information pamphlet about a specific Area of Critical Environmental Concern. It’s dated 27 Aug 2005 (date is coded on map legend "M05-08-27"). Ref #6 is from very extensive BLM Environmental Impact Statement, dated 24 Feb 2004. That document was used to justify designating Fossil Lake as Area of Critical Environmental Concern. While neither is attributed to individual author, both are credible sources.--Orygun (talk) 00:31, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

ALT 1 satisfies my concerns. I should be able to finish my review tomorrow. --Walter Siegmund (talk) 05:28, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

I found no plagiarism; checks with duplication/copyvio detectors found matches for standard phrases and references only. "Pumice sands from Mount Mazama and Newberry Crater" was the longest match, but is cited at the end of the paragraph in which it occurs.[4] ALT 1 is engaging, referenced and the right length. I think all criteria are satisfied. --Walter Siegmund (talk) 16:39, 15 August 2014 (UTC)