The article was delisted by Casliber via FACBot ( talk) 3:01, 2 December 2018 (UTC) [1].
First time I am doing this. I am nominating this featured article for review because it doesn't seem to meet 1a and 1c of the FA criteria anymore; there is a large amount of unsourced material and choppy paragraphs. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 10:12, 15 October 2017 (UTC) reply
@ Ceoil: Any update on this? Nikkimaria ( talk) 18:17, 27 January 2018 (UTC) reply
Delist if changes are not made. 2nd para of the lead is overwrought given the article length. Plus, there are 1a issues right off the bat:
Hopefully the article is given a facelift per above. — Deckiller ( t- c- l) 16:30, 5 February 2018 (UTC) reply
A volcanic eruption as large as the Tambora 1815 eruption would cause a catastrophic devastation with more fatalities. Therefore volcanic activity in Indonesia is continuously monitored, including that of Mount Tamborawhich I can't find a source for. Help? Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 11:38, 3 March 2018 (UTC) reply
Delist unless and until the many prose issues are sorted out, needs a lot more than "light copyediting". Eric Corbett 11:33, 18 March 2018 (UTC) reply
"Two nearest cities are Dompu and Bima"Does that mean that Dompu and Bima are two of several nearest cities, or is there a missing "The" at the beginning of the sentence?
"The end of this route is the southern part of the caldera ...reachable by means of a hiking track."This sentence purports to be describing the first of two routes, so where does the hiking track fit in?
"The existence of Tambora is estimated to have begun around 57 ka BP."That's very unidiomatic. Better would be something like "Tambora is estimated to have been created in about 57 ka BP", or even "... to have come into existence ..." at a push.
"... Using radiocarbon dating technique ..."
"... at depths between 1.5–4.5 km ..."Should be something like "at depths between 1.5 and 4.5 km" or "at depths of 1.5–4.5 km".
Delist
Alright - I closed this but neglected to see that (finally) some work is going into it. I'll leave it open for a bit. @ Tisquesusa: can you please alert reviewers when you're ready for folks to take a look? Cas Liber ( talk · contribs) 03:16, 10 August 2018 (UTC) reply
So, where are we with this one? Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 21:06, 1 December 2018 (UTC) reply
The article was delisted by Casliber via FACBot ( talk) 3:01, 2 December 2018 (UTC) [1].
First time I am doing this. I am nominating this featured article for review because it doesn't seem to meet 1a and 1c of the FA criteria anymore; there is a large amount of unsourced material and choppy paragraphs. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 10:12, 15 October 2017 (UTC) reply
@ Ceoil: Any update on this? Nikkimaria ( talk) 18:17, 27 January 2018 (UTC) reply
Delist if changes are not made. 2nd para of the lead is overwrought given the article length. Plus, there are 1a issues right off the bat:
Hopefully the article is given a facelift per above. — Deckiller ( t- c- l) 16:30, 5 February 2018 (UTC) reply
A volcanic eruption as large as the Tambora 1815 eruption would cause a catastrophic devastation with more fatalities. Therefore volcanic activity in Indonesia is continuously monitored, including that of Mount Tamborawhich I can't find a source for. Help? Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 11:38, 3 March 2018 (UTC) reply
Delist unless and until the many prose issues are sorted out, needs a lot more than "light copyediting". Eric Corbett 11:33, 18 March 2018 (UTC) reply
"Two nearest cities are Dompu and Bima"Does that mean that Dompu and Bima are two of several nearest cities, or is there a missing "The" at the beginning of the sentence?
"The end of this route is the southern part of the caldera ...reachable by means of a hiking track."This sentence purports to be describing the first of two routes, so where does the hiking track fit in?
"The existence of Tambora is estimated to have begun around 57 ka BP."That's very unidiomatic. Better would be something like "Tambora is estimated to have been created in about 57 ka BP", or even "... to have come into existence ..." at a push.
"... Using radiocarbon dating technique ..."
"... at depths between 1.5–4.5 km ..."Should be something like "at depths between 1.5 and 4.5 km" or "at depths of 1.5–4.5 km".
Delist
Alright - I closed this but neglected to see that (finally) some work is going into it. I'll leave it open for a bit. @ Tisquesusa: can you please alert reviewers when you're ready for folks to take a look? Cas Liber ( talk · contribs) 03:16, 10 August 2018 (UTC) reply
So, where are we with this one? Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 21:06, 1 December 2018 (UTC) reply