This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||
|
Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but
graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at
pageviews.wmcloud.org |
The Wikipedia article does not go into much detail (but lacks a "stub" marker); for more information, readers are pointed to a couple of more technical research sites, where it seems the real meat is hidden away behind a paywall.
This is obviously not satisfactory. Recommendations: either flesh out the article, or provide more citations, especially whose content is freely accessible by anyone who has an interest, or of course do both. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 74.104.131.76 ( talk) 17:42, 10 April 2007 (UTC).
Hate to be a barbarian, but this article probably reads well for anyone trained or well-read in vulcanology/geology, but is overly technical for most other readers. Many technical terms are used, and some are not defined or linked. The avergae (intelligent) reader, I am afraid, may need the technicalities relegated to a lower section, while an introductory section explains the causes, significance and effects of the eruption in less technical, more prosaic, style. In my humble opinion... -- Iacobus ( talk) 05:26, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
The image I added was removed :(
with the edit summary: Unencyclopedic picture.
Not sure in what way they meant, but to make sure it was accurate I used
this page to get an idea of how light colored rhyolite is, and this
page to get an idea of where the ash went.
Anynobody
01:04, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
They can be difficult, but on the other hand since there were no human witnesses it does afford me some luxuries. One of them is not setting the viewer at 40k ft and calling it space, so I tried from a new perspective. (PS The direction of ash fall hasn't been changed, it's still e-se but that should be much more apparent now.) Anynobody 05:22, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
I completely understand your concerns, and the difficulty comes from what I understand to be a complicated eruption. I imagine this column being a few to fifteen minutes old, but not the first one either. In the new version several fires have been burning from an earlier eruption the previous day (kind of enabling one to understand how much higher the eruption column goes. I wanted to emphasize the height involved with ashfall 10cm thick on Chatham Island.) If this is accurate: The eruption column was followed by a devastating pyroclastic flow, blanketing a roughly circular area within 80 kilometres of Lake Taupō with ignimbrite, and destroying all life in its path. Then the major pyroclastic flows have yet to occur at the time depicted.
Do you think I should work on a two or three image series to illustrate various phases? Anynobody 04:11, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
I guess this event had dramatic effects on the NZ ecosystem. Would be interesting to get some infos on thats. -- Yug (talk) 16:18, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
Was NZ settled at that time? -- Waqqashanafi ( talk) 05:42, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||
|
Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but
graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at
pageviews.wmcloud.org |
The Wikipedia article does not go into much detail (but lacks a "stub" marker); for more information, readers are pointed to a couple of more technical research sites, where it seems the real meat is hidden away behind a paywall.
This is obviously not satisfactory. Recommendations: either flesh out the article, or provide more citations, especially whose content is freely accessible by anyone who has an interest, or of course do both. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 74.104.131.76 ( talk) 17:42, 10 April 2007 (UTC).
Hate to be a barbarian, but this article probably reads well for anyone trained or well-read in vulcanology/geology, but is overly technical for most other readers. Many technical terms are used, and some are not defined or linked. The avergae (intelligent) reader, I am afraid, may need the technicalities relegated to a lower section, while an introductory section explains the causes, significance and effects of the eruption in less technical, more prosaic, style. In my humble opinion... -- Iacobus ( talk) 05:26, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
The image I added was removed :(
with the edit summary: Unencyclopedic picture.
Not sure in what way they meant, but to make sure it was accurate I used
this page to get an idea of how light colored rhyolite is, and this
page to get an idea of where the ash went.
Anynobody
01:04, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
They can be difficult, but on the other hand since there were no human witnesses it does afford me some luxuries. One of them is not setting the viewer at 40k ft and calling it space, so I tried from a new perspective. (PS The direction of ash fall hasn't been changed, it's still e-se but that should be much more apparent now.) Anynobody 05:22, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
I completely understand your concerns, and the difficulty comes from what I understand to be a complicated eruption. I imagine this column being a few to fifteen minutes old, but not the first one either. In the new version several fires have been burning from an earlier eruption the previous day (kind of enabling one to understand how much higher the eruption column goes. I wanted to emphasize the height involved with ashfall 10cm thick on Chatham Island.) If this is accurate: The eruption column was followed by a devastating pyroclastic flow, blanketing a roughly circular area within 80 kilometres of Lake Taupō with ignimbrite, and destroying all life in its path. Then the major pyroclastic flows have yet to occur at the time depicted.
Do you think I should work on a two or three image series to illustrate various phases? Anynobody 04:11, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
I guess this event had dramatic effects on the NZ ecosystem. Would be interesting to get some infos on thats. -- Yug (talk) 16:18, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
Was NZ settled at that time? -- Waqqashanafi ( talk) 05:42, 2 June 2018 (UTC)