Talk:Lava balloon

Article name - rename to singular
I suggest that the title of this article should be renamed to "Lava balloon" - see Article titles and Naming conventions (plurals). GeoWriter (talk) 17:10, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Huh. I must have missed that. Aye, this should probably be moved. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 17:14, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

Copy edit notes
This is a great article and DYK. I gave it a proofread (mostly MOS:DASH and a convert template) and have a few extra notes for your consideration: Again, a great article, I enjoyed learning about this. – Reidgreg (talk) 16:01, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Section Appearance says they have been observed up to about 3 metres on their long axis, while the lead says "up to several metres in size". Consider if the lead should be more precise, as several is often taken to mean quite a bit more than three.  (Doubling the diameter means eight times the volume.)
 * Hmm, is there a better word for this? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:55, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
 * My tendency would be "up to 3 metres across" in the lead. That also tells the reader this is diameter and not circumference. Reidgreg (talk) 19:25, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
 * That looks fine for me. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:37, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
 * the position of active volcanic vents on the seafloor but also wind and ocean current driven transport. This doesn't quite track. Consider replacing with something like "seafloor, adjusted by wind and ocean currents."
 * I dunno, "adjusted" seems like an odd formulation to me here... Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:55, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Could be "after taking into account". Although, to be honest, maybe the "wind and ocean currents" is unneeded. If the balloons ascend relatively quickly and only float for 15 minutes, these factors may not greatly affect their position. Reidgreg (talk) 19:25, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
 * No, the sources did explicitly discuss that even with short floating times wind and currents have substantial influence. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:37, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Okay. Let me take a bigger quote of that sentence:  clustering in particular areas that appear to reflect the position of active volcanic vents on the seafloor but also wind and ocean current driven transport.  I may have misread this.  My original reading was that 'cluster areas indicated positions of vents and the distance balloons were transported by wind and currents' but maybe the intention is that 'clusters indicated positions of vents and also indicated wind and currents' or 'clusters indicated positions of vents although this can be offset by wind and currents'.  It's the "but also" and "driven transport" that I find awkward, and while I get the general meaning I feel that it could be simplified. Reidgreg (talk) 16:56, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, it's supposed to mean one of these two things. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 17:04, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
 * entrained water can be transported through the tube and eventually end up in developing pillow lavas There are some tone issues with "eventually" and "end up in" is a bit informal; also, "up in" might be confusing if taken as multiple prepositions.  Would it be any better with the underlined section replaced with something like "delivered into"?
 * "Enters"? "Delivered into" sounds like there is a Lava Nymph that transports water into developing lava balloons. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:55, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Sounds good. Reidgreg (talk) 19:25, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
 * There, gas emanating from a gas-rich magma accumulated below a crust on top of lava, forming blisters that eventually reached a critical buoyancy and broke off, forming lava balloons. Perhaps "accumulated below a crust, forming blisters in the lava; some of these blisters reached a critical buoyancy and broke off, forming lava balloons."
 * Aye, that seems to work. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:55, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Finally, lava fountaining processes have been proposed "Finally" is another word that doesn't quite set right with encyclopedic tone.  We're not exhaustively listing every possible explanation, just the notable ones.  So perhaps "Lava fountaining is another proposed process for forming balloons underwater."
 * I used that word mostly to make it sound a bit more prose-like and less like a string of sentences. I don't necessarily object to removing it but there is a reason I put it in. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:55, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I hear you. What about something like "A more-recent proposal"?  It looks like the sources for that one are a year or two newer than the others. Reidgreg (talk) 19:25, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I dunno, I don't think that it's so important that it's more recent. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:37, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I was just trying a prose-like alternative. It's not the worst thing to have "Finally" there, though it should be addressed if you take this to FAC. Reidgreg (talk) 16:56, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't think that 25,500 kilobytes of text are really something that would be run at FAC level. That, and the topic suffers a little from the fact that most sources discuss lava balloons in individual eruptions, rather than as an unified topic. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 17:04, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
 * traps exoluting gases but also magma "but" indicate a change of thought and I'm not detecting one here.  Perhaps replace it with "along with".
 * That seems like a good change, agree. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:55, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
 * The management of the El Hierro eruption in general attracted intense criticism. I don't think this is talking about the eruption itself being managed, but the response to the eruption.  So maybe replace the underlined section with "response management to", "official response to", "emergency response to", "government response to" or somesuch.
 * Seems like a good change as well. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:55, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks, . I did reply within this post. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:55, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:53, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

Volcanic gas link
, are you sure it's a good idea to explicitly link "gas-filled" to volcanic gas? Based on what is said in the "Genesis" section, the gas that fills a balloon is not necessarily from the magma itself. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:27, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
 * If it's not volcanic gas then what kind of gas is it? I didn't see it the "Genesis" section. Volcanoguy 06:37, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Water that penetrates the lava can boil and the resulting vapours can inflate the balloons and make them float has been invoked as an explanation for lava balloons in Hawaii and I would not call this vapour a "volcanic gas". Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:14, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I reverted my edit thanks for spotting that out. Volcanoguy 21:17, 30 April 2019 (UTC)