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


 * 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.

List of largest volcanic eruptions

 * Nominator(s):  QFL 24-7 bla ¤ cntrb ¤ kids ¤ pics ¤ vids 17:01, 15 August 2010 (UTC), Res Mar , Avenue (talk)

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)


 * 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)


 * 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)
 * I've added alt text for the volcano photo and the map. --Avenue (talk) 14:01, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
 * 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)

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)
 * Some concerns now dealt with, and struck out. --Avenue (talk) 22:24, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
 * More struck out. --Avenue (talk) 14:06, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
 * 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)

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)
 * I also agree, but Dabomb is demanding I build concensus :) Res Mar 19:04, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I'd also prefer that name to the current one. --Avenue (talk) 22:24, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
 * 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)

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


 * 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)
 * 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 :( Res Mar 18:44, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Nt: Most of the attached classifications to the list are largly useless and add a lot of space. I've hidden them bar removal. Res Mar 20:49, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Hey Avenue, I think you've done enough now to get a conom on this :) Res Mar 20:54, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't say no. :) --Avenue (talk) 22:24, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Annnndd done :) <span style="font-family:Verdana,Arial,Helvetica"><b style="color:#731A25;">Res</b> Mar 23:16, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

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

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 ;) <span style="font-family:Verdana,Arial,Helvetica"><b style="color:#731A25;">Res</b> Mar 01:34, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Hold yer horses, Anne Robinson. ;)  I'll try to take a good read through it by Tuesday. Courcelles 05:16, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
 * The last thing I want to get right now is de ja vu. <span style="font-family:Verdana,Arial,Helvetica"><b style="color:#731A25;">Res</b> Mar 02:09, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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. <span style="font-family:Verdana,Arial,Helvetica"><b style="color:#731A25;">Res</b> Mar 20:35, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I have removed the offending statement. <span style="font-family:Verdana,Arial,Helvetica"><b style="color:#731A25;">Res</b> Mar 20:37, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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. <span style="font-family:Verdana,Arial,Helvetica"><b style="color:#731A25;">Res</b> Mar 21:26, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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. <span style="font-family:Verdana,Arial,Helvetica"><b style="color:#731A25;">Res</b> Mar 02:33, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
 * HELLO? ANYONE THERE? <span style="font-family:Verdana,Arial,Helvetica"><b style="color:#731A25;">Res</b> Mar 03:39, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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 :) <span style="font-family:Verdana,Arial,Helvetica"><b style="color:#731A25;">Res</b> Mar 01:18, 19 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Support - this looks much better now— Chris! c / t 02:26, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Support. Looks a lot better than when I commented on the article's talk page in August.  Volcano guy  05:43, 26 September 2010 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.