Wikipedia:Peer review/Mount Tambora/archive1

Mount Tambora
Since a couple of days, I have made a revamp of this article. It was full of misleading images and unsourced statements and very long quotes. I have put well-defined references and removed some unverified statements. Here, I would like other opinions from reviewers about this article. Any suggestions, critics, corrections and direct copy-editing are very welcome. Thanks in advance. Cheers. &mdash; Indon ( reply ) &mdash; 12:23, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

I looked into the introduction, and I think it is very good (links all work, refs are good). Also, really like the birds eye view graphic. Only question from intro is “explosion sound was heard until Sumatra” - perhaps you meant in Sumatra, suggestion would be to “explosion sound could be heard in Sumatra”… ... ? just a suggestion Dharp66 19:48, 12 October 2006 (UTC)Dharp66


 * Response: Thanks a lot, Dharp66. I have changed the intro as you suggested. I'm going to ask some people to help copyediting the article. &mdash; Indon ( reply ) &mdash; 07:27, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

The article looks great. Could the one lonely bit of trivia be incorporated into the text somewhere? User:Wayward might accept a request for copyediting if you ask him. --Peta 01:48, 13 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Response: Thanks, Peta. Yes, the only trivia is a bit lonely. It was put by someone. At first, (s)he put it in the main text and I put it later at the end, because I think that it is a non-notable information. I was going to remove it, but I don't want to get into an edit war with him/her. I'm going to wait for other contributors/reviewers to copyedit that information. Perhaps, I'm going to put it in the footnotes. Oh, and thanks for pointing me to Wayward. I'm going to ask him. &mdash; Indon ( reply ) &mdash; 07:27, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Comments: I have added notable quotes at the end of the article. Could somebody please make a review of the article? Thanks. &mdash; Indon ( reply ) &mdash; 08:24, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Quotes normally go on wikiquote. Mabye a few could be worked into the section on the eruption? --Peta 04:51, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Good point. I've taken two quotes and embedded it into the section. Thanks. &mdash; Indon ( reply ) &mdash; 09:17, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Question: Do you think that the article is eligible for the WP:FAC? &mdash; Indon ( reply ) &mdash; 11:27, 17 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Ruhrfisch 02:58, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, I've read it. It's a cool program. I have fixed the unit of measurement, a heading started with "The", and some redudancies. The only things left, when I ran again the script, are wikilinks of months and days, and wikilinks of full dates. I don't think if I put all dates from chronological history of the eruption into wikilink, then it would be wise and makes a better readability to the article. Also that the year 1815 is repeated over the entire article and it wouldn't be good to have all wikilinked. Or am I wrong about wikilink of dates? Is this issue harmful for submitting this article to FAC? &mdash; Indon ( reply ) &mdash; 14:07, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I understand that you only wikilink dates if they are month day and year. Also, you only need to wikilink the first time something is in the article (so I would not link 1815 and even if I did, I would only link it once or at most once per section). Hope this helps, Ruhrfisch 04:01, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, that what I meant. So wikinlinked only the first appearance important years (1815 and 1816), the date of the eruption 10 April 1815 and some years in the table of selected vulcanic eruptions. &mdash; Indon ( reply ) &mdash; 16:39, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Sounds good to me - you can link just years if they are important, of course. DIdn't mean to say otherwise above. Take care, Ruhrfisch 03:37, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't know much about volcanos, but are inactive volcanos "extinct," as written in the first line of the 1815 section, or are they "dormant" as I've come to understand the term? --badlydrawnjeff talk 12:19, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
 * An "exinct" volcano is one that will never be active again, a dormant volcano is not active but could be - whether one can be sure an inactive volcano is one or the other I don't know. however I just recently changed "thought to be non-volcanic" to "thought to be extinct". (i have presumed it was known to be of volcanic origin - all mountains in the Sunda arc are) Ie, the statement has more to do with its perceived state at the time rather than its actual state (which hindsight was indeed "dormant"!). THe other point is, did the locals at the time no about a distinction between "extinct" and "dormant"? Maybe the article needs to say "for long a time dormant,..." if we can find a good reference. --Merbabu 12:34, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Oh yes, the statement of "long thought to be non-active" is in the source, cited at the end of the sentence. &mdash; Indon ( reply ) &mdash; 12:53, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
 * OK, but to nit-pick, in technical terms, non-active volcanoes are described as either "dormant" or "extinct", depending on their state. Thus i suggested "For a long time dormant,..." lol - maybe it is not that important. --Merbabu 13:04, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
 * For me, it's all right to replace the word, as long as it has the same meaning. I was just to reply your remark: "if we can find a good reference". Cheers. &mdash; Indon ( reply ) &mdash; 13:07, 27 October 2006 (UTC)