Talk:Lake Elsman

Lakes Low‑importance

	Lakes portal Lake Elsman is within the scope of WikiProject Lakes, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of lake-related articles on Wikipedia, using the tools on the project page. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LakesWikipedia:WikiProject LakesTemplate:WikiProject LakesLakes articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

California: San Francisco Bay Area Low‑importance

	California portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject California, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of California on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CaliforniaWikipedia:WikiProject CaliforniaTemplate:WikiProject CaliforniaCalifornia articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	San Francisco Bay Area portal This article is supported by San Francisco Bay Area task force (assessed as Low-importance).

Dams Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Dams, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Dams on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.DamsWikipedia:WikiProject DamsTemplate:WikiProject DamsDam articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Depth

There are two contradictory depths in this article. The text states the lake is "over 140 feet deep", but the info box states it is 180 feet deep. Of course, "over 140 feet deep" could mean 180 feet deep, but that would be confusing. I don't know the correct answer, but it's just a minor thing which needs to be corrected. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Martylunsford (talk • contribs) 05:59, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Both figures appear to come from the same source, which says of the reservoir that it’s more than 140 feet deep and of the dam, that it has a 180 foot high spillway. Judging by the topography, it's likely the deepest point in the reservoir is just behind the dam. However, the topo map also makes it clear that the dam is somewhat taller on the downstream side than the upstream one, so I doubt the water is 180 feet deep. Lacking another source for water depth, I'll remove the doubtful information. —Stepheng3 (talk) 22:12, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Lake Elsman. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120309153328/http://www.water.ca.gov/damsafety/docs/Juris%28A-G%291.pdf to http://www.water.ca.gov/damsafety/docs/Juris(A-G)1.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:42, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]