Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of volcanoes in Indonesia

List of volcanoes in Indonesia
Self-norm. A list of active volcanoes in Indonesia, grouped by geographical regions. There are many red links at the moment, but I am trying to create stubs of those. I guess the list has conformed the WP:WIAFL. &mdash; Indon ( reply ) &mdash; 10:07, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose . Very complete, organized, and referenced list. I'd support but the large amount of red links really bothers me. The prose also needs some copyediting throughout. Suggestions for the lead (move cursor over underlines to see the comments):

This is a list of volcanoes in Indonesia, which most of them are active. The geography of Indonesia is dominated by volcanoes, that are formed due to the subduction zones between (the) Eurasian plate and (the) Indo-Australian plate. Volcanoes of Indonesia are (a) part of the Pacific Ring of Fire. Some of them are notable for their eruptions: Krakatoa in 1883,[1] Lake Toba for its supervolcano eruption,[2] and Mount Tambora in 1815 for the most violent eruption in (the) recorded history.[3]

 Michaelas10   (Talk)   19:28, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
 *  Small oppose  - lead is too shorrt. Also the red links. Renata 21:54, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Change to support per work done since. Renata 17:57, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Comments:
 * Lead has been copyedited per Michaelas10's suggestion and will expand more.
 * Red links → trying to create stub articles, but need more time.
 * Based on the amount of works to create stub articles, can I retract this nomination for the moment? &mdash; Indon ( reply ) &mdash; 08:46, 18 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Comments Some small points:-
 * The introduction states that most of the volcanoes are active - does this mean that the others are extinct? Other lists of volcanoes in countries inlcude extinct volcanoes. Is there a difference between "non active" (dormant?) volcanoes and extinct ones?
 * In the introduction I had to click on "BP" to find out what it meant, it may be best to replace with Before Present.
 * It would be nice if all of the tables had the same width.

CheekyMonkey 13:53, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
 * → Reply
 * I couldn't find any sources that indicate active/dormant status, even at the Smithsonian Institute's of Global Volcanism Program, which is the main source of this article. So the status between active and dormant cannot be assured of. Only the last eruption, which I have included in the table, can be used as an estimation of a volcanic activity.
 * replaced.
 * I'll try to fix the width.
 * &mdash; Indon ( reply ) &mdash; 14:02, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Ok, the last eruption data should suffice.
 * Thanks - I've replaced "in" with "to have occurred" just before as I think this reads better.
 * User:Qyd has kindly done this and it does now look better in lower resolution on Firefox.
 * CheekyMonkey 23:37, 18 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Updates :
 * The lead is expanded, need a copyedit.
 * Table width is fixed into 70%.
 * I added last section of Major Eruptions for some eruptions with high VEI scales and number of fatalities.
 * I need still to create a lot of stub articles for the red links.
 * &mdash; Indon ( reply ) &mdash; 10:47, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment: I like the new eruptions table, however I find it a little hard to read. I'm color blind and the green colors are hard to distinguish between. Would it be possible to add an extra column with a numeric value for the VEI, and limit the color shading to this column only, thereby making the other columns easier to read without the colored background? (Caniago 11:36, 19 December 2006 (UTC))
 * → Reply sorry Michael, it's done. &mdash; Indon ( reply ) &mdash; 11:59, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
 * How about now? Is it still difficult to read? I used a very light colors as background, and VEI scale column is also given. &mdash; Indon ( reply ) &mdash; 12:10, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Much better, thanks. (Caniago 23:16, 19 December 2006 (UTC))
 * I've given the expanded lead some copyediting Indon, but you should check to see if the facts remained correct.  Michaelas10   (Talk)   15:54, 19 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment: Pleistocene should be capitalized. Dates need to be linked per MOS. Rmhermen 05:15, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
 * → Reply: Pleistocene is now capitalized and full dates are wikilinked, but not all dates, per WP:CONTEXT. &mdash; Indon ( reply ) &mdash; 09:16, 20 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment: The prose in the list is still filled with awkward sentences and grammatical mistakes. It is preferable that someone with strategic distance will copyedit it, so you might as well contact an experienced copyeditor. Or would you like me to do it instead?  Michaelas10   (Talk)   20:33, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
 * → Reply: Oh yes, please! If you'd have time to fix the grammatical mistakes and also prose, then I'd very happy then. Thanks a lot. &mdash; Indon ( reply ) &mdash; 08:53, 21 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment. I would like to see in the lead the overall number of volcanos in Indonesia. Plus, the Geography of Indonesia article says that there is 400 volcanos including 100 active, does this list list them all? It's not clear if this is a list of all, major or active volcanoes. Anyway great list. CG 20:03, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
 * → Reply: Hmm.. I don't know from which source the Geography of Indonesia is, the article is totally unsourced. I took the main source from Global Volcanism Program. All of the item in the list are taken from the website, that I think the most reliable website for volcanology. &mdash; Indon ( reply ) &mdash; 07:43, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
 * It may be the most reliable source but it's not a complete one. I've gone through the website and there isn't a place where the criteria of listing are clearly defined. It is a great list but its scope is not well-defined. For someone doing a research should he consider that Indonesia has only 150 volcanoes? or that only 150 are active? or that only 150 are studied by the Global Volcanism Program? Unless the criteria for inclusion in this list are well-defined in the lead (take a look at List of dinosaurs at the "Scope" section) I vote Oppose . CG 18:33, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I appreciate your opposition, but I strongly believe that the source is the most reliable and the most complete list of volcanoes in Indonesia. Please see my update below. There are at least 150 volcanoes in Indonesia (some twin volcanoes or a closely-related volcanoes are combined into one name in the list, see the newly added Scope section). There are hundreds more non-volcanic mountains in Indonesia, for instance, Borneo, central Sulawesi and Papua islands are highly mountaneous, but the list only contains volcanoes (either active or thought-to-be non-active). The criteria of what volcano is, has been given in the article. &mdash; Indon ( reply ) &mdash; 22:56, 31 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment. Indon good work with creating all the stub articles (disclaimer: I've created 2 of them). I was leaning toward supporting but can't at the moment due to the prose, I've given the article a light copyedit but more still needs to be done. Also there is a selected list of eruptions at the bottom of the list, what is the basis of selection? It might be worth stating that eruptions of 2 VEI or above in the last century are noted along with an example of each of the VEI scales (4, 5, 6, 7 & 8) before that. CheekyMonkey 00:47, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
 * → Reply: Still some red links to go. :-) Re prose, Michaelas10 has helped me and I'm going to ask other copyeditors around WP to help me. Honestly, I've still problem with the prose myself. :"> And the last selected eruptions, it was based on eruptions equal or above 3, except if scale 2 with some fatalities. I'm going to put some explanations about this selected filters. Thanks anyway. &mdash; Indon ( reply ) &mdash; 01:20, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Just a note that you don't have to fill in all the red links WP:WIAFL 1a. states that a list has "a large majority of links to existing articles" and I'd say you were close to that right now. This list is shaping up nicely and I'm very close to supporting. CheekyMonkey 12:19, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Reply, all right then. My focus is now copyediting the prose. I'll try to find some helps. &mdash; Indon ( reply ) &mdash; 13:19, 28 December 2006 (UTC)


 * comment in what disciplines is it common to use 'ka' instead of ',000' for years ago? Hmains 05:09, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
 * →Reply: In geology, paleontology and celestial mechanics, together with Ma, Ga and Ea, but I get your point. It's better to use nominal to avoid confusion from general readers. Thanks. &mdash; Indon ( reply ) &mdash; 10:45, 29 December 2006 (UTC)


 * comment the number of fatalities seems missing from the 5 April 1982 Galunggung eruption. (Caniago 13:15, 29 December 2006 (UTC))
 * →Reply: Yes, I can't find any source, mentioning the fatalities. I know people died, because I experienced it myself (my parent's house was covered with ashes). The Galunggung article mentions 35 deaths but it is unsourced. I searched over the Volcanological Survey Indonesia website, but alas they don't mention it. So I left it empty, while looking any reliable sources. Thanks Michael. &mdash; Indon ( reply ) &mdash; 13:51, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
 * The following websites quotes 68 dead for this erruption, (Caniago 15:25, 29 December 2006 (UTC))


 * comment the following website lists an event at Papandayan which caused 2,957 deaths (Caniago 16:02, 29 December 2006 (UTC))
 * Weak support. I'd like to see the written parts of the article improved upon, mayb ehave the grammar police look at it a bit. The lists themselves look great though. I decided to lean support since it doesn't look like it'll pass anyway. -- Wizardman 19:24, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Could you please point out in which specific areas does the list require copyediting?  Michaelas10   (Talk)   17:02, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Major updates. It might be appropriate for the second nom., but since the current nomination is still running, then I give major updates since the first nom. based on the valuable comments from reviewers above.
 * 1) All red links are now gone. I have created stubs for them.
 * 2) The Major Eruptions section has been updated. I have added a new reliable source for fatalities from:
 * 3) Based on CG's comments above, I added a new section about Scope. The primary source of the list is taken from the Global Volcanism Program, but according to, the website is based on the book:
 * It is the most reliable and the most complete reference for volcanoes, used as an important reference for volcanologists. The book was selected as the Best Reference Book of 1995 by the Geographical Information Society. Particularly for Indonesia, the book used the catalogue:
 * officially published by IAVCEI. As a completeness comparison,
 * The Volcanological Survey of Indonesia only lists around 60 volcanoes.
 * The Volcano World only contains 51 volcanoes in Indonesia.
 * USGS states that only 76 volcanoes in Indonesia with historical records.
 * Encyclopaedia Britannica states 220 active volcanoes in Indonesia, but there is no list of the volcanoes. I think if individual vents are counted as separate volcanoes, it might be that the list expands into 220 volcanoes. (I have explained this in the Scope section)
 * The Volcano World only contains 51 volcanoes in Indonesia.
 * USGS states that only 76 volcanoes in Indonesia with historical records.
 * Encyclopaedia Britannica states 220 active volcanoes in Indonesia, but there is no list of the volcanoes. I think if individual vents are counted as separate volcanoes, it might be that the list expands into 220 volcanoes. (I have explained this in the Scope section)

&mdash; Indon ( reply ) &mdash; 23:00, 31 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I now Support as per all the good work done since the original nomination. CheekyMonkey 19:38, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Change my vote to Support. CG 14:31, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Support well done. --Qyd 15:03, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Support, of course.  Michaelas10   (Talk)   15:48, 3 January 2007 (UTC)