Template:Did you know nominations/Lake Atna


 * 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 Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:27, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Lake Atna

 * ... that ancient Lake Atna may have produced some of the largest freshwater floods in history? Source: "New research indicates that one of the largest fresh-water floods in Earth’s history happened about 17,000 years ago... The event was one of at least four 'megafloods' as Glacial Lake Atna breached ice dams and discharged water."
 * ALT1:... that a megaflood from ancient Lake Atna 17,000 years ago may have contributed to the devastation caused by the 1964 Alaska earthquake? Source: "The megaflood also could explain some of the catastrophic damage that occurred in the magnitude 9.2 Great Alaskan Earthquake of 1964."

Created by Hammersoft (talk). Self-nominated at 19:35, 20 January 2017 (UTC).


 * Symbol confirmed.svg New article, definitely long enough. Had a minor internal debate about whether it contained information which was generally too scientifically presented (specifically on discharge rates), but I err positively on the side of caution and consider this a subject for general edits rather than DYK. Interesting article otherwise, hook included and referenced to viable source. Providing no QPQ required, full steam ahead says I. Zakhx150 (talk) 11:14, 22 January 2017 (UTC) :*   -->
 * Thanks for the review! I spent considerable time thinking about how best to present information regarding the megafloods of this lake. I too share your concern about it perhaps being too scientific, and not readily consumable by the average person. The problem is that in order to discuss scale of floods, such terminology is very common within the field. See for example this discussion on the Missoula Floods. I find it everywhere I look. So, I left it in as is. I'm open to suggestions. On QPQ; I'm aware of it, and plan to do some reviews in the coming week. I've never had anything nominated at DYK, so I have no DYK credits, so I qualify for the exception but I'll make some reviews anyway. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:15, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Correction. Apparently I nominated something >5 years ago . I don't recall doing that, but it's been a long time. Even so, the QPQ check says that's the only one. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:21, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Yeah I do appreciate that its the terminology of the field - I was quite happy with it in the end as I took it as my ignorance of mathematical formulae rather than any impropriety on your part. I did check twice for your DYK credits - looking at your previous prolific work I had thought there might be something missed, but it's all good. Still very happy with this, DYK away matey. Zakhx150 (talk) 19:31, 22 January 2017 (UTC)


 * I took a stroll down the dusty, dark pathways of disused dendrites in the back of my brain (read: I dug into my edit history) and found this. I remember the guy; leaving his fortune to people not yet born. I just didn't remember nominating the article. Anyway, I'll have more time tomorrow to do some reviews, and will. Thanks, --Hammersoft (talk) 19:38, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I added "(2.0-3.3 million cubic meters per second)" after the first use of the terminology. How's that? --Hammersoft (talk) 19:49, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Yep that pretty much resolves that issue, such as it was. Thanks for looking at it again. Zakhx150 (talk) 19:56, 22 January 2017 (UTC)