Talk:Underground lake

Possible error in caption of the first image.

There may be an error in the caption of the first image in the article. The caption states that the picture is of an underground lake, but both the description of the file in its page and the caption for the same image in Subterranean river call it a river. So it should be figured out whether it is a river or a lake, and then the articles should be changed accordingly. 90.139.88.55 (talk) 08:28, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

It appears that there are many acknowledged underground lakes as a part of what is overall named as being the "river" North8000 (talk) 11:34, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

Attempted overhaul of stub

I attempted to overhaul this article and get it at least out of stub-class. Based on an extensive review of sources, there isn't much accessible documentation out there about underground lakes... most often, they're referred to in the context of "aquifers are not underground lakes", or as asides in material about Karst formations. Working with what I could find, I tried to make this article as comprehensive and accessible to readers as I could.

In its current state, I believe it ranks somewhere between Start-class and C-class (based on the criteria described here). I opted to assign it as C-class, since I'm really not sure how much better it will ever get, based on the limited amount of sourcing out there - and I didn't want to see it classified as Start-class forever. If anyone disagrees, I'm open to hearing discussion about it PhotogenicScientist (talk) 14:57, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

Please sign your posts. Rater Tool assesses/predicts that the article is only 40% to C rating. It seems like it is still a Start class. Thank you for your improvements. Netherzone (talk) 14:57, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

Could you provide more detail about the "Rater Tool"? Seems like it automatically parses an article and gives a potential rating based on certain criteria - what are these criteria? Also, do you see any areas in which this article could improve? PhotogenicScientist (talk) 15:00, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

There are several statements made in the article that are not backed up with citations, and may be original research WP:OR. All claims should be referenced to a reliable source. In general, it seems that the article content can be developed further. For example, there could be a Geology section on some of the geological forces that goes into greater detail than what is currently in the article. Also, rather than having a simple list of examples, it would be useful to the readership if there was a sentence or two about each of these if they are considered important examples. Two of these are mentioned in the lede, but are not expanded upon in the body of the article. The lead is supposed to summarize what is in the article. Another area that could be developed might be a History section on notable discoveries and explorations of underground lakes. I think it would also be interesting to have content on the water profile of underground lakes, and possibly a section on pollution. Also a section on ecology including cave critters. Just some thoughts off the top of my head... Netherzone (talk) 15:28, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

Those are some good ideas. I appreciate the feedback! PhotogenicScientist (talk) 15:30, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

This may be useful for you to read if you have not already: Wikipedia:Content assessment. Here is a link to Rater Tool: WP:RATER and its associated talk page with searchable archive: WT:RATER. Netherzone (talk) 15:39, 30 September 2022 (UTC)