![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | Hekla received a peer review by Wikipedia editors, which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article. |
It´s said that Hekla is 1491 meters in the article itself but in the right side of the page it is says that Hekla is 1488 meters. Which is right? 18:52, 27 november 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.144.210.42 ( talk)
Hekla is a stratovolcano, not a tuya (as this page was changed to read). See this page |Global Volcanism Program: Hekla Summary for confirmation, which is a reliable volcanological source published by the Smithsonian.
The cone of Hekla is built up of overlapping lava flows and pyroclastic deposits, which pretty much fits the exact definition of stratovolcano. It did not erupt subglacially, as a tuya must. There do not appear to be any reliable reference sources which state that it is a tuya. Thanks. Seattle Skier 08:01, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
Image:Stamp IS 1948 25a-400px.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
—
Save_Us
†
09:56, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
I have a source stating unequivocally that Hekla's eruption in 1159 BC had a catastrophic effect on Bronze Age Britain - (see Timeline of prehistoric Scotland) - causing 18 years of bad weather. This is: Moffat, Alistair (2005) Before Scotland: The Story of Scotland Before History. London. Thames & Hudson. I presume this is the same eruption that the Smithsonian reference has as "950 BC(?)". From the reference section Moffat is probably quoting Steven Mithen's (2003) After the Ice, but I don't want to use an historian to correct a geological site without access to a primary source. Ben MacDui Talk/ Walk 15:30, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
So, you guys are actually thinking about changing a 950 BC eruption date that has been established in the scientific literature based on 1) a 1985 news story where some guys are speculating about simply "moving" a radiocarbon date to match their own historical theories and 2) on unreferenced lecture notes put up by some unknown unaffiliated guy who runs a catastrophe website? Neither one is a reliable source in any possible universe. Stuff like this is why Wikipedia has no credibility. GVP Webmaster ( talk) 20:18, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
I've copied a major expansion of this article from userspace so for full edit history see that page as well. As I've been working on this for a while I hope that I've managed to incorporate the edits to the article in the meantime, apologies if I have missed a few. JMiall ₰ 21:40, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question.
between a number and the unit of measurement. For example, instead of 4 km, use 4 km, which when you are editing the page, should look like: 4 km.
[?]The peer review for this article has said 'Units need to be consistently in both metric and English units for all measurements / numbers given. {{convert}} may be useful here'
I'm unsure that this will make the article better, particularly the readability of the eruption sections which are currently quite dense with numbers and units. The 1st exception in MOS:CONVERSIONS may apply as this is a scientific article to some extent and I would have thought that converting the 1st instance of each unit should be sufficient. Does anyone else have any thoughts on this? JMiall ₰ 22:08, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
I translated most of the (very good!) article over into German and thereby remarked some little mistakes.
- "The eruption, which was preceded by sulpherous smells and earthquakes, started as a Plinian eruption, producing an ash cloud reaching an altitude of 11.5 km within 10 minutes which had travelled over 200 km to the coast within 3 hours."
Which coast is meant here? The nearest coast to Hekla would be the south coast of Iceland which is not more than about 30-40 km away from the volcano.
- "By the second day the activity stopped in all but one fissure where the main crater formed. During these 2 days 800 m3s-1 of lava were produced, slowing to 800 m3s-1 for most of the eruption."
One of these chiffres can't be the exact one. Reykholt1 ( talk) 12:01, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
Here is a link for today's (April 19) eruption. Nå viser også vulkanen Hekla tegn til utbrudd —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pl77 ( talk • contribs) 17:16, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
Doesn't Grimsvotn erupt more often than Hekla? 71.171.137.64 ( talk) 20:10, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
This terrorist group should be added. I guess in popular culture. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.113.96.60 ( talk) 07:29, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
A cleric of the Ro(od)klooster monastery in a Brussels Joannes Franciscus Van der Auwera noted that in the summer of 1782 the sun looked awfully red and hazes obstructed the sunrays. He saw rockets shooting through the sun. First he thought these were miraculous signs, but later he read that the Hecla had erupted. As proof that it had a natural, volcanic cause he wrote he could smell sulphur and that the hazes weren't damp.
In het jaer 1782 waer der eenige teeken te zien in de zonne van eenen aenstanden onderganck. Van den 18 julii tot de 3 augustus was de zonne vervaerlyck [...] want savons van 6 uren zoo lang als hy zinbaer was, kwam er eenen droegen nevel, die de stralen belettende en toonde daerdoor een schrickelyck vuerachtig en bloedvervig gesicht. Onder tussen zag men vuerpylen door de zonne schieten [...] Ik hebbe dan in de historien den natuerlycken oorspronck gelesen, de welcke schreven : wy hebben in het yland Eysland in de Nord Zee ontrent 15 à 16 dagen beginnende het midden van julii tot augus. een tempest gehad in den berg Hecla van vuer en solfer, stof en asschen [...] Van dezen berg kwam zoodanig stof, dat den gheelen aertsbol door vloeg zoo dick dat de straelen van de zonne wirden door wederhouden. [...][etc]
Source: A. Maes (ed.), 'Simpele Waerheyd - Kroniek van Roklooster (1777-1809) van J.F. Van der Auwera, Pittem, 1972, pp. 13-14.
(I have no experience editing wikipedia, but sincerely I hope this might be helpfull, if more sources can confirm a 1782 eruption. Unfortunately Van der Auwera doesn't specify his source. Regards, Reinout 25/6/14) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.190.128.253 ( talk) 08:37, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
The current main picture ( https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Hekla_II_(15642636575).jpg ) is NOT Hekla, it is of a mountain called Þríhyrningur (Translates as Triple-horn). (It's an honest mistace, the photographer pointed the camera in the correct direction but Þríhyrningur is in the way)
See this Google maps link, where Þríhyrningur is in the foreground and Hekla is in the background: https://goo.gl/maps/U4Zc2
193.4.113.34 ( talk) 15:05, 16 June 2015 (UTC)gummih
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 4 external links on
Hekla. Please take a moment to review
my edit. You may add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 23:38, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 8 external links on Hekla. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 05:06, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
apart from that this section is extremely big in comparison to the rest and full of unimportant trivia, in the "organisation" part there are several inter-wiki-links that are not helpful and not according to wp rules. please review and repair! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.71.43.76 ( talk) 21:17, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
Could the geology section be improved for the lay reader perhaps by a better explanation of modern geological understanding ?. This is a complex volcano in an almost unique tectonic intersection on land that has thrown up recent surprises to some such as its dangerous pyroclastic current potential, and of course economic risk outside Iceland.
I noted that correctly the volcano is described as transitional alkaline basalt, but this fails to convey the range of actual eruptives and their implications early in the article in a volcano that usually exhibits not only very short warning of significant eruptions but no warning of the type of eruption which ranges from effusive to explosive and no comment of factors such as potential gas content of eruptives which can be related in other volcanoes to time between eruptions. The article first mentions the historic rhyolite eruptives outside the geology section and does not comment on the modern compositional analysis of its historic eruptions or 2000 eruption that must exist in the academic literature.
Possibly the historic eruption section could be improved by a table or timeline but ideally these improvements should be made by someone who understands the volcano and literature better than me as I have never been to Iceland and suspect that some such data might be hidden behind pay walls or in languages I do not know. ChaseKiwi ( talk) 13:55, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | Hekla received a peer review by Wikipedia editors, which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article. |
It´s said that Hekla is 1491 meters in the article itself but in the right side of the page it is says that Hekla is 1488 meters. Which is right? 18:52, 27 november 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.144.210.42 ( talk)
Hekla is a stratovolcano, not a tuya (as this page was changed to read). See this page |Global Volcanism Program: Hekla Summary for confirmation, which is a reliable volcanological source published by the Smithsonian.
The cone of Hekla is built up of overlapping lava flows and pyroclastic deposits, which pretty much fits the exact definition of stratovolcano. It did not erupt subglacially, as a tuya must. There do not appear to be any reliable reference sources which state that it is a tuya. Thanks. Seattle Skier 08:01, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
Image:Stamp IS 1948 25a-400px.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
—
Save_Us
†
09:56, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
I have a source stating unequivocally that Hekla's eruption in 1159 BC had a catastrophic effect on Bronze Age Britain - (see Timeline of prehistoric Scotland) - causing 18 years of bad weather. This is: Moffat, Alistair (2005) Before Scotland: The Story of Scotland Before History. London. Thames & Hudson. I presume this is the same eruption that the Smithsonian reference has as "950 BC(?)". From the reference section Moffat is probably quoting Steven Mithen's (2003) After the Ice, but I don't want to use an historian to correct a geological site without access to a primary source. Ben MacDui Talk/ Walk 15:30, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
So, you guys are actually thinking about changing a 950 BC eruption date that has been established in the scientific literature based on 1) a 1985 news story where some guys are speculating about simply "moving" a radiocarbon date to match their own historical theories and 2) on unreferenced lecture notes put up by some unknown unaffiliated guy who runs a catastrophe website? Neither one is a reliable source in any possible universe. Stuff like this is why Wikipedia has no credibility. GVP Webmaster ( talk) 20:18, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
I've copied a major expansion of this article from userspace so for full edit history see that page as well. As I've been working on this for a while I hope that I've managed to incorporate the edits to the article in the meantime, apologies if I have missed a few. JMiall ₰ 21:40, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question.
between a number and the unit of measurement. For example, instead of 4 km, use 4 km, which when you are editing the page, should look like: 4 km.
[?]The peer review for this article has said 'Units need to be consistently in both metric and English units for all measurements / numbers given. {{convert}} may be useful here'
I'm unsure that this will make the article better, particularly the readability of the eruption sections which are currently quite dense with numbers and units. The 1st exception in MOS:CONVERSIONS may apply as this is a scientific article to some extent and I would have thought that converting the 1st instance of each unit should be sufficient. Does anyone else have any thoughts on this? JMiall ₰ 22:08, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
I translated most of the (very good!) article over into German and thereby remarked some little mistakes.
- "The eruption, which was preceded by sulpherous smells and earthquakes, started as a Plinian eruption, producing an ash cloud reaching an altitude of 11.5 km within 10 minutes which had travelled over 200 km to the coast within 3 hours."
Which coast is meant here? The nearest coast to Hekla would be the south coast of Iceland which is not more than about 30-40 km away from the volcano.
- "By the second day the activity stopped in all but one fissure where the main crater formed. During these 2 days 800 m3s-1 of lava were produced, slowing to 800 m3s-1 for most of the eruption."
One of these chiffres can't be the exact one. Reykholt1 ( talk) 12:01, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
Here is a link for today's (April 19) eruption. Nå viser også vulkanen Hekla tegn til utbrudd —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pl77 ( talk • contribs) 17:16, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
Doesn't Grimsvotn erupt more often than Hekla? 71.171.137.64 ( talk) 20:10, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
This terrorist group should be added. I guess in popular culture. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.113.96.60 ( talk) 07:29, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
A cleric of the Ro(od)klooster monastery in a Brussels Joannes Franciscus Van der Auwera noted that in the summer of 1782 the sun looked awfully red and hazes obstructed the sunrays. He saw rockets shooting through the sun. First he thought these were miraculous signs, but later he read that the Hecla had erupted. As proof that it had a natural, volcanic cause he wrote he could smell sulphur and that the hazes weren't damp.
In het jaer 1782 waer der eenige teeken te zien in de zonne van eenen aenstanden onderganck. Van den 18 julii tot de 3 augustus was de zonne vervaerlyck [...] want savons van 6 uren zoo lang als hy zinbaer was, kwam er eenen droegen nevel, die de stralen belettende en toonde daerdoor een schrickelyck vuerachtig en bloedvervig gesicht. Onder tussen zag men vuerpylen door de zonne schieten [...] Ik hebbe dan in de historien den natuerlycken oorspronck gelesen, de welcke schreven : wy hebben in het yland Eysland in de Nord Zee ontrent 15 à 16 dagen beginnende het midden van julii tot augus. een tempest gehad in den berg Hecla van vuer en solfer, stof en asschen [...] Van dezen berg kwam zoodanig stof, dat den gheelen aertsbol door vloeg zoo dick dat de straelen van de zonne wirden door wederhouden. [...][etc]
Source: A. Maes (ed.), 'Simpele Waerheyd - Kroniek van Roklooster (1777-1809) van J.F. Van der Auwera, Pittem, 1972, pp. 13-14.
(I have no experience editing wikipedia, but sincerely I hope this might be helpfull, if more sources can confirm a 1782 eruption. Unfortunately Van der Auwera doesn't specify his source. Regards, Reinout 25/6/14) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.190.128.253 ( talk) 08:37, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
The current main picture ( https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Hekla_II_(15642636575).jpg ) is NOT Hekla, it is of a mountain called Þríhyrningur (Translates as Triple-horn). (It's an honest mistace, the photographer pointed the camera in the correct direction but Þríhyrningur is in the way)
See this Google maps link, where Þríhyrningur is in the foreground and Hekla is in the background: https://goo.gl/maps/U4Zc2
193.4.113.34 ( talk) 15:05, 16 June 2015 (UTC)gummih
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 4 external links on
Hekla. Please take a moment to review
my edit. You may add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 23:38, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 8 external links on Hekla. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 05:06, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
apart from that this section is extremely big in comparison to the rest and full of unimportant trivia, in the "organisation" part there are several inter-wiki-links that are not helpful and not according to wp rules. please review and repair! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.71.43.76 ( talk) 21:17, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
Could the geology section be improved for the lay reader perhaps by a better explanation of modern geological understanding ?. This is a complex volcano in an almost unique tectonic intersection on land that has thrown up recent surprises to some such as its dangerous pyroclastic current potential, and of course economic risk outside Iceland.
I noted that correctly the volcano is described as transitional alkaline basalt, but this fails to convey the range of actual eruptives and their implications early in the article in a volcano that usually exhibits not only very short warning of significant eruptions but no warning of the type of eruption which ranges from effusive to explosive and no comment of factors such as potential gas content of eruptives which can be related in other volcanoes to time between eruptions. The article first mentions the historic rhyolite eruptives outside the geology section and does not comment on the modern compositional analysis of its historic eruptions or 2000 eruption that must exist in the academic literature.
Possibly the historic eruption section could be improved by a table or timeline but ideally these improvements should be made by someone who understands the volcano and literature better than me as I have never been to Iceland and suspect that some such data might be hidden behind pay walls or in languages I do not know. ChaseKiwi ( talk) 13:55, 13 December 2023 (UTC)