Difference between revisions of "Template:Did you know nominations/Fossil Lake (Oregon)"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
imported>Wsiegmund (Done recently enough before nomination, long enough (>10,000 characters).) |
imported>Wsiegmund (I'm not sure about the number 23 in the hook) |
||
| Line 22: | Line 22: | ||
:* Done recently enough before nomination, long enough (>10,000 characters). --[[User:Wsiegmund|Walter Siegmund]] [[User_talk:Wsiegmund|(talk)]] 16:03, 12 August 2014 (UTC) | :* Done recently enough before nomination, long enough (>10,000 characters). --[[User:Wsiegmund|Walter Siegmund]] [[User_talk:Wsiegmund|(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.[http://www.leroyfoster.com/CIMG5094.JPG] | ||
| + | |||
| + | ::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".[http://www.blm.gov/or/plans/files/LakeviewRMP/lkvwfoplans/Final_2003RMP/Volume_1_Main_Text/VOL_1_ChapterTwo.pdf] 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."[http://www.blm.gov/or/resources/recreation/files/brochures/Sand%20Dunes.pdf] 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. --[[User:Wsiegmund|Walter Siegmund]] [[User_talk:Wsiegmund|(talk)]] 05:11, 13 August 2014 (UTC) | ||
}}<!--Please do not write below this line or remove this line. Place comments above this line.--> | }}<!--Please do not write below this line or remove this line. Place comments above this line.--> | ||
Revision as of 05:11, 13 August 2014
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
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)