Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of largest volcanic eruptions/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was promoted by Dabomb87 21:44, 28 September 2010 [1].

List of largest volcanic eruptions[edit]

List of largest volcanic eruptions (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Toolbox
Nominator(s): QFL 24-7 bla ¤ cntrb ¤ kids ¤ pics ¤ vids 17:01, 15 August 2010 (UTC), ResMar, Avenue (talk)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because it may be the most complete and usable list of its kind anywhere on the internet, and passes WP:Featured list criteria. I should not that the list did not go through a formal peer review (as it is not required to do so), but did go through an extensive informal peer review on my talk page, my sandbox talk page, and the WikiVolc talk page. QFL 24-7 bla ¤ cntrb ¤ kids ¤ pics ¤ vids 17:01, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Restarted, old version.
  • Director's note I have restarted this nomination because it was growing prohibitively long with commentary, and the consensus was unclear. Can all reviewers please restate their opinions and list whatever concerns they have left? Dabomb87 (talk) 21:50, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from WFC
*Prose/lead: As a novice to the subject, I think the lead is excellent.
  • Comprehensiveness: Obviously this can never be a complete list, so I would defer to the three experts on this point.
  • Structure: Very good.
  • Style: I still question whether a better image could be found, but it's certainly not a deal breaker.
  • Stability: Whether or not the content of this can be considered stable will largely depend on the outcome of this discussion. Although long-winded, the previous discussion and editing pattern was constructive, and there is no reason to assume that won't continue.
  • Summary: I'll check that the references back up the prose, and do a little bit of random sampling for factual accuracy in the tables. Assuming no problems there I'm close to supporting, but will wait until there is consensus from the experts that the list is as comprehensive as can reasonably be expected. --WFC-- 00:05, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I wonder if this image (or a more readable version) might be a better lead image than the current one. Two of the four eruptions on the left are in our list.; Mt St Helens is the smallest of the three on the right. --Avenue (talk) 16:39, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
ResMar has put it in, and I've replaced it with a more readable version (at full size). --Avenue (talk) 00:14, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, on the basis that the specific issues in this post will be easy to deal with. As a novice I'm happy that everything provided in the tables is explained before I get to it, so from that perspective the prose is fine. Although a co-nom, I strongly anticipate that Avenue will ensure the prose is improved from the perspective of people with background knowledge, and therefore have no worries on that front. Experts would probably be more concerned with the comprehensiveness and reliability of the raw data. There is consensus that this is as comprehensive as it can be, and I'm happy with that. We could do with a bit more information on ref 45, and perhaps an explanation that the speaker in ref 30 was working for the USGS. That just leaves ref 24, but I guess there's simply nothing to add there. Criteria 6 clearly isn't an issue at all. I've filled in the alt parameter for the lead diagram. I could have done proper alt text, but I don't see what discussing cuboids and spheres would have added. There should also be some proper alt text for the volcano image though, and some sort of text in the alt parameter of the map, so that someone who cannot see the map is receiving a similar level of information. --WFC-- 03:39, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've added alt text for the volcano photo and the map. --Avenue (talk) 14:01, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've expanded our citations in refs 45 and 30, and cited another source to back up ref 24 (the journal article it used as a source). --Avenue (talk) 02:06, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The page has improved a lot, especially in comprehensiveness, but I don't think it's there yet. I'm hopeful that we can bring it into line with the FL criteria vithin the next week or so, though. Taking the criteria one by one:

1. Prose. I think bigger issues should be addressed before we worry about this.
2. Lead. The lead seems to meander a bit. More importantly it has an out-of-date scope, which needs to be revised now that the page includes a sub-list of large effusive eruptions.
2. Comprehensiveness. This aspect is much improved since the original nom, and is probably good enough.
(a) The page now covers the scope implied by its title (i.e. the largest known eruptions, including effusive ones). I'm not sure how useful the annotations in the Notes column are to readers, but this isn't something I feel strongly about.
(b) The page now sits comfortably as a standalone list.
4. Structure. This page seems very hard to follow, IMO, due to LIPs and effusive eruptions being elided, the consequent inaccuracies in the lead section, and the absence of a clear explanation about how LIPs fit into the topic. It does have sensible section headings and table sort facilities. Unfortunately the DRE/tephra confusion makes the default ordering of the explosive eruptions table misleading in places. I'll raise this latter point on the talk page to begin with, to avoid cluttering up the discussion here.
5. Style. This seems okay at first glance, although it needs a light copyedit to get rid of a couple of minor issues like run-on sentences and capitals inside sentences. I haven't checked the citations. A few images could help a lot, e.g. to illustrate the areas affected by recent examples of explosive and effusive eruptions.
6. Stability. It has changed a lot during the featured list process, but I'm not aware of any edit wars.

I hope I'll have time tomorrow to start helping to address the outstanding issues. By the way, I certainly don't claim to be an expert. --Avenue (talk) 09:33, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Some concerns now dealt with, and struck out. --Avenue (talk) 22:24, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
More struck out. --Avenue (talk) 14:06, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There are a couple of things that could still be tidied up, like the DRE/tephra ranking issue and the location descriptions, but I think this is now in pretty good shape. --Avenue (talk) 16:49, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Agree that the list has improved quite a bit. But I still think the list should be renamed List of largest volcanic eruptions, so that it is consistent with other lists (e.g. List of largest buildings in the world).—Chris!c/t 19:48, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I also agree, but Dabomb is demanding I build concensus :) ResMar 19:04, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'd also prefer that name to the current one. --Avenue (talk) 22:24, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
OK, no prob with the name change, as long as we keep the current redirect. I'm just thinking along the lines of likely google searches... QFL 24-7 bla ¤ cntrb ¤ kids ¤ pics ¤ vids 22:52, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Resolved comments from bamse (talk) 19:42, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comments:
  • There are some abbreviations in the volcano/eruption column such as "P2O5", "PAV F",... that should be explained in a footnote or so.
Pfft, geologists think up all the wierdest names for strata identification and the like. Not sure what to do with it, exactly. ResMar 19:11, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I think I figured out that P2O5 is Phosphorus pentoxide. If it is too weird, it is fine with me to leave it out. However, I am not happy with the first tables' columns because it is not always clear which names refer to a volcano and which to an eruption. Sometimes there are "/" separating the two, but not always. This should be made more clear. bamse (talk) 19:22, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Will look into it. ResMar 20:49, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure if you changed anything. For entries that don't have a "/", I am still not sure if it is a volcano or an eruption. Also, what is the difference between long and short dash ("Guarapuava —Ventura" vs. "Sana'a Ignimbrite – Tephra 2W63" for instance)? bamse (talk) 19:10, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have removed the weird prenames (not needed anyway, in hidden if you want it), and also standardized the dashes and "/" to —. Cheers, ResMar 00:30, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Should the "Date" column be renamed to "Age"?
Done. ResMar 19:11, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorting of the date columns does not work.
It's geology: numbers go from 20,000 to 200 million. Sorting almost never works automatically. Will add keys soon. ResMar 19:11, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Added sortkeys to the biggest concern, explosive eruptions ages. Will add them to the effusive eruptions list and work out locations later. ResMar 20:49, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Works now, thanks. bamse (talk) 19:39, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is some inconsistency in the "Location" entries. Sometimes the state/country is mentioned and sometimes not. Please make it uniform. It would be more useful if this column sorted as "Country-name Sublocation-name" instead of "Sublocatoin-name Country-name".
Will look into it. ResMar 20:49, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The biggest difficulty I see with making the "Location" entries uniform is that we know the location of some eruptions much better than others. For some, the caldera is identified, but for others, we just have a vast expanse of tuff, spread over two continents and several countries. I don't see a nice way to express this uniformly. --Avenue (talk) 16:47, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
OK. bamse (talk) 19:39, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Unify the heading of the 4th column among the three tables.
Done. Note the thousands/millions scale difference between the first/second and third lists. ResMar 20:49, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. bamse (talk) 09:58, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • 4th column sorting is broken (at least) in the third table.
That's cause someone wrote "at least" there :) ResMar 19:11, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Surely we should write "at least" (or some equivalent) if that's what the cited source says. Getting our table to sort nicely is a secondary issue. --Avenue (talk) 00:14, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Fixing, see above. Largely a non-issue now but needs some tweaking. ResMar 20:49, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If it does not sort (as it seems to be the case at the moment), make the column "unsortable" like the "Notes" and "Refs" columns not to give the wrong impression of sortability. bamse (talk) 09:58, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Now sorting okay. --Avenue (talk) 09:28, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

bamse (talk) 20:57, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. bamse (talk) 19:39, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support, after all my comments have been (patiently) addressed. bamse (talk) 08:08, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have no big issues with the suggestions above, and welcome anyone to change them, as I have gotten bogged down with real life lately. I will do what I can, which is not much. As far as expert agreement, I think what Avenue addresses above is quite appropriate, and once these changes are made, it should be fine. We have had an epic debate over the presentation of this list, but it has been civil, and no edit warring has taken place... we have, for the most (99%) part, gradually come to an agreement. The name issue I thought was previously decided, but again, any consensus to change the name is fine. I think the current name is fine (since many, MANY FL do not start with "List of") with the "List of" redirect. If a change is agreed upon, that is fine, but I believe we had this discussion, and more people wanted it to stay the way it is. OK, if there is something specific anyone needs me to do, I am happy to (try to) help, and a talk message to me would be welcome. Otherwise, I will pitch in as I can, but I think the list is, in general, in great shape, much better than my initial draft. QFL 24-7 bla ¤ cntrb ¤ kids ¤ pics ¤ vids 00:15, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Gimmie a bit of time and I will handle it for you. Sucks about your rl commitments; I'm currently enjoying a 4-day break myself, but once it gets back to serious schoolwork, my time here will be distinctly limited :( ResMar 18:44, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nt: Most of the attached classifications to the list are largly useless and add a lot of space. I've hidden them bar removal. ResMar 20:49, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Avenue, I think you've done enough now to get a conom on this :) ResMar 20:54, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't say no. :) --Avenue (talk) 22:24, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Annnndd done :) ResMar 23:16, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just a non-essential suggestion: Did you consider moving the paragraphs that explain what "Explosive eruptions","Effusive eruptions" and "Large igneous provinces" are from the lead to their respective sections (i.e. in front of each table)? bamse (talk) 11:31, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's worth trying. I've done it, and added a couple more images. --Avenue (talk) 13:41, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree the article has moved in leaps and bounds (I certainly wouldn't have nominated it in such an unprepared state...), and this discussion is wholeheartidly helping the process, but can we get a little bit of voting action...? At the end of the day it's the !votes that count, after all ;) ResMar 01:34, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hold yer horses, Anne Robinson.  ;) I'll try to take a good read through it by Tuesday. Courcelles 05:16, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The last thing I want to get right now is de ja vu. ResMar 02:09, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Towards oppose I did not go in detail through the list but when the article starts with "This is an incomplete list, which may never be able to satisfy particular standards for completeness. You can help by expanding it with reliably sourced entries. + This is a list of the world's largest known volcanic eruptions." I am not very hopeful with it. A featured list should be essentially complete, but having such a banner implies it is clearly not close to it. Then, having "this is a [insert title of list here]" further adds to the level of unprofessionalism. Plus, the sentence suggests that the list might also include non-Earth eruptions. 86.123.16.86 (talk) 17:38, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Are IPs allowed to vote in FAC nominations? Anyhow, the reason that the {{dynamic list}} template is used is because this article is esentially incomplete. For the one part there is no divident; what is "a large eruption?" Secondly, there are plenty of articles that use the template, for example List of volcanoes in the Hawaiian - Emperor seamount chain. This is because in some cases no clear line can be drawn; a constantly evolving science and advancing technologies allow us to discover more and more about the Earth's history, and in many cases much more detailed studies are needed to understand them. For some, the complete area and range is not even known. ResMar 20:35, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have removed the offending statement. ResMar 20:37, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree strongly with the idea that acknowledging incompleteness is unprofessional. It is much more professional to explain the extent and reasons for incompleteness than to pretend something is more complete than it really is. I'd agree that that template can seem too glib, but I think we discuss the reasons why this list is incomplete in enough detail later on.
Why do you think "the world's largest known eruptions" suggests that extraterrestrial eruptions might be included? I think it is clear from the context that the world we are speaking about is Earth. --Avenue (talk) 22:26, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Our knowledge of extraterrestrial volcanism slim, of their eruptive areas nonexistant. If such a page was made it would go on List of largest volcanic eruptions on Io etc. ResMar 21:26, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Our knowledge of extraterrestrial eruptions is slim, yes, but we do have some idea about volcanism. We could perhaps add a comment near the LIP list about the relative size of Olympus Mons, the lunar maria, and the resurfacing of Venus. --Avenue (talk) 23:39, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I think it's more fitting we focus on Earth; the article is obvious Earth-centered. I never really thought of extraterrestrial volcanism, and we shouldn't when we write these articles; they'de better be on seperate pages imo. ResMar 02:33, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
HELLO? ANYONE THERE? ResMar 03:39, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW I agree that earthly eruptions should be the primary focus. But I think a "List of extra-terrestrial eruptions" sounds interesting, and the IP has a point that only focusing on Earth is a form of systemic bias :) Sandman888 (talk) 08:27, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A good idea for a new disclaimer: "This list focuses only on Earth features; extraterrestrial features are listed seperate." Speaking of which, I really want to write a extraterrestial volcano article: it would be fun :) ResMar 01:18, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 11:24, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comments (all above is a little TLDR for me, so here's an objective review based on hitting it fresh)
  • Would prefer to see you explain what a volcanic eruption was before you tell me facts and figures about ash produced etc.
I've added a sentence along these lines. --Avenue (talk) 16:35, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think the lead image is designed to turn people off. No offence but I would like to see a brilliant eruption photo here instead.
Releveant photographs are located in the sections below. The image provides extremely important context supporting the text. Also, look at Mt. St. Helens and see how tiny it was =) ResMar 02:15, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The lead image would not encourage me to read on. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:27, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've added a photo of Pinatubo's 1991 eruption, the biggest eruption that we have a photo of. I think the diagram is very informative, and is worth keeping, but I agree it's probably not the best lead image for a general audience. It's colours are a bit muted, too, which doesn't help. I'll have a go at punching it up soon. --Avenue (talk) 13:48, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Diagram now replaced with darkened version. --Avenue (talk) 17:30, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I know ejecta leads to a dab which you probably can't do much about, but perhaps include a note to clarify what type of "ejecta" you're talking about.
In the general sense. ResMar 02:15, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Have you noted that? The Rambling Man (talk) 06:27, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've now replaced "ejecta" with "tephra" (which is briefly defined earlier). --Avenue (talk) 16:35, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • " In comparison, the 1980 eruption of Mount St. Helens produced only 1 km3 (0.2 cu mi) of material,[4] and the 1815 eruption of Mount Tambora, the largest eruption in recent history, produced 160 km3 (38 cu mi) of volcanic deposits." while these comparisons are (I'm sure) fascinating, you don't go anyway to explaining their relevance to (me) a non-expert.
As a comparison to the massive eruptive scales below? It's a bad misconception that the Mt. St. Helens eruption was a large one; it was actually very small (not small small, but small). 1 km3 of material is pretty easy to imagine in ones head; the bigger figures (millions of km3!) are not =) ResMar 02:15, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've changed the text a bit to try to make the comparison clearer. --Avenue (talk) 16:44, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Your lead caption mentions "supereruption" - it's unclear what this is, from both the image or the list.
Avenue removed it. ResMar 02:15, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, it didn't seem to add enough to be worth explaining. --Avenue (talk) 13:55, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Would prefer to see "Age" with same d.p. and right-aligned so it's easy to compare row to row.
d.p.? ResMar 02:15, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Decimal places. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:27, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"~132.000" does not read well at all. Alignment would be good, but not at this cost. --Avenue (talk) 13:55, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I've managed to get the ages to align fairly well without adding zeroes (to avoid showing spurious precision). --Avenue (talk) 16:21, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Volume col, might as well just have the biggest as 8,600 and smallest as 1,000 to prevent the ugly lack of sig fig throughout the column. Plus it makes the col title a little neater.
Done. Please note however that the other two are in Ma, so it would probably be best not to change them to avoid confusion. ResMar 02:15, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No, only the LIPs are measured in millions of km³. I've changed the volumes in effusive eruptions list to km³ for consistency with the explosive eruptions list. --Avenue (talk) 14:02, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "1.509 [n 4]" no space between number and note please.
Done. ResMar 01:51, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • " (map in German)" - perhaps link to German language?
Done. --Avenue (talk) 14:02, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 27: is " 8713–1732" correct?
Fixed. ResMar 01:48, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 35 page range needs an en-dash.
Em, it is an en-dash...? ResMar 01:48, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retrieval dates need to be consistently formatted, either DMY or ISO...
Done. Things had sprung up since my last ref check :) ResMar 01:48, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Rambling Man (talk) 17:39, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Ref 52 has pp50–9 while other page ranges repeat the full page number, e.g. 343–364, so 52 should pp50–59. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:27, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That actually referred to paper 50-9 (i.e. the 9th paper in session 50), not a page range. I've changed the citation to use {{cite conference}} instead, and to give the actual page number. --Avenue (talk) 14:34, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - this looks much better now—Chris!c/t 02:26, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Looks a lot better than when I commented on the article's talk page in August. Volcanoguy 05:43, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_list_candidates/List_of_largest_volcanic_eruptions/archive1&oldid=1140157015"