Template:Did you know nominations/Orcadian Basin

The following discussion 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 PFHLai (talk) 18:32, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Orcadian Basin

(

• Back to T:TDYK
• Article history

)

• ... that the Devonian Orcadian Basin was at one time filled with a lake estimated to be hundreds of kilometres across and over 100 metres deep (deposits pictured)?

Created/expanded by Mikenorton (talk). Self nom at 23:51, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

• Reviewed Battle_of_Burton_Bridge (1322)[1]

Comment/suggestion: The name of the lake, Lake Orcadie, is mentioned in the lead, but not in the body. I think it should be cited in the body of the text with the hook and added to the hook. I just think that it would make it sound a little more interesting.

I have checked the length and time and they are okay. I have not reviewed anything else.--Ishtar456 (talk) 13:35, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Lake Orcadie is a somewhat antiquated name for the lake(s) that existed throughout the Eifelian and into the Givetian, rather than the maximum extent - if anything this tends to be known as the Achanarras lake. I could add something about the fish fossils - I'll take a look and see what I can come up with. Mikenorton (talk) 13:48, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

I propose the following alt hook -

• ALT1... that the Devonian Orcadian Basin once contained a lake estimated to be hundreds of kilometres across, forming distinctive sediments (pictured) in which a diverse fauna of fossil fish has been found? Mikenorton (talk) 20:54, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

• I do find that more interesting and I will start the review, but I would keep "Devonian" because that peaked my curiosity. I have not checked the length of the hook yet, so I don't know if it will push it over.--Ishtar456 (talk) 21:39, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

• The expansion is new enough and long enough, no image issues.BUT, I don't see a citation for "hundreds of kilometres across."--Ishtar456 (talk) 22:04, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
• and the hook will still meet standards if you put "Devonian" back.--Ishtar456 (talk) 22:07, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

I've added an extra inline cite to ref 13, which says "The size of the lake/lake basin is more difficult to determine. The total West–East extent of the ORS depositional system from western Orkney to Norway is some 400 km. However, it is clear that this includes several discrete half-graben (Fig. 1). The North–South dimension is more problematic but an Achanarras correlative can be identified as far north as Shetland, a distance of some 400 km excluding post-Devonian strike-slip movement. In addition, there was the high probability of a series of interconnected basins reaching as far north as East Greenland (Canning Land and Vilddal, Gauss Halvø), a distance of 118, i.e. about 1500 km when Greenland is placed within a tight fit reconstruction." So no precise measurements, but enough to support 100s of km I suggest. If you're not happy with that, perhaps it could just say 'very large' or similar (that source describes it as a mega-lake). Another source, which I'll add to the article, refers to an area of at least 50,000 square kilometres at this time. Mikenorton (talk) 22:54, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. This one is done.

:*I've just created a page on the Kačák Event from a redirect, which could be added here to turn it into a double hook as

• ALT2... that the Kačák Event was expressed in the interior of the Old Red continent as the maximum lake extent in the Orcadian Basin (deposits pictured), due to intensification of the monsoon system?

If a reviewer is OK with this, the template will need to be updated, if not that's not a problem. Mikenorton (talk) 12:54, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Comment: I'm sorry, I thought this one was long gone. I would approve it, if I understood the hook. I think you should stick to the previously agreed on hook. But that is just my opinion. Good Luck with it.--Ishtar456 (talk) 22:03, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

• I just wanted to make it clear that I accepted this on 3/4 (and forgot to sign). Then a new hook was proposed, then that proposal was withdrawn, so this is good to go.--Ishtar456 (talk) 20:58, 7 March 2012 (UTC)