Talk:1883 eruption of Krakatoa

Good Article Nomination
Ryan Huang-01 (talk) 04:36, 20 March 2019 (UTC) I was wondering if, after moderate cleanup and more references in the sections, a good article nomination could be made by a major contributor? I am no expert in Wikipedia editing, so please do not overly criticize me if I am absolutely wrong. I was just thinking of this article, and it gave a rather good cover over the topic, including some very useful information comparing it to other eruptions and their amount of deaths. Please help, Ryan — Preceding unsigned comment added by User: (talk • contribs)

Please note that ryan has been replied to on his talk page. There is nothing absolutely wrong, it is simply something that take a lot of time and effort. Look at other volcanoes that have GA status - look at other articles about volcanoes in indonesia, and look how much work is required. That takes time and effort. Best of luck. JarrahTree 06:26, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

Section about rp template
In the section Climactic phase a note or reference and in "The Burning Ashes of Ketimbang another example  . They seem to lead nowhere and / or are not linked to any reference. I do not have the knowledge to correct this and am loathed to remove. Anyone point me in the right direction please. Edmund Patrick –  confer 10:01, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 04:22, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
 * KrakatoaHV.webm

Article issues

 * This article is listed as B-class but has multiple citation issues including inline "citations needed" tags dated December 2014, December 2018, a "failed verification" dated February 2020, and a section "needs additional citations for verification" dated August 2020.
 * The criteria (#1) states: The article is suitably referenced, with inline citations. It has reliable sources, and any important or controversial material which is likely to be challenged is cited. Obviously "likely" is surpassed with the tags.
 * It seems pretty clear that with the long-standing citation issues the article fails to pass the criteria for B-class.Notifying WikiProject Volcanoes and WikiProject Indonesia. -- Otr500 (talk) 02:07, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

Dubious pressure wave figure.
The cited 310 decibel figure is extremely dubious to say the least. The way decibel scales work, every +10dB increase corresponds to a 10x increase in intensity. In the article, a more believable figure is given for the sound level 100 miles from the source (8.5 kPa). If you plug this figure into this calculator https://www.translatorscafe.com/unit-converter/en-US/sound-pressure-level/3-9/millipascal-sound%20pressure%20level%20in%20decibels/ the value is consistent with this article citing 172 dB at the same distance. https://nautil.us/the-sound-so-loud-that-it-circled-the-earth-four-times-2-236014/

If the sound was 172 decibels 100 miles away, this means it was about 192 decibels 10 miles away, or 212 dB 1 mile away. This is probably approaching the practical limit of proximity to the source of the sound as the source was not an infinitesimal point, but a large volume of compressed gas. In order for the pressure wave to reach 310 decibels, all of the sound energy would have had to have been contained within a space about 1/4 inch in diameter, or about 8mm.

The 310 dB figure seems extremely dubious. Fauble2000 (talk) 00:54, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

Dubious claim about bodies
The uncited claim that the remains of victims were found floating at sea months after the eruption is highly improbable. Human remains just don't last that long in water, especially the open sea. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:23, 11 November 2023 (UTC)