Mount Tambora
Self-nom. This article has been peer-reviewed, in the GA process and through a number of copyedits by independent reviewers (thanks to Yomangani, Wayward, ONUnicorn and also others); now it's time for FAC. I've tried to expand a little bit, but now it seems that all materials needed for the subject are already written there. Any comments for further improvements are very welcomed. — Indon ( reply) — 16:11, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
- Support A well researched and presented article. Well done Indon. ( Caniago 17:58, 10 November 2006 (UTC))
Comment - This is a fine and fascinating article, but I don't beleive it comprehensively covers the topic. It appears to only really cover the 1815 eruption. There is the date 1967 in the infobox for the last eruption, but no mention made in the text. Has the volcano erupted anymore times? What about the parasitic cones mentioned in the geological formation section? When did they appear? My advice would be to compare this article with the Mount Pinatubo article and fill in what is missing. I might also suggest that the 1815 eruption be broken off into a separate article, perhaps one that might even merge with the article on the Year Without a Summer, being that it is such a major event with worldwide implications. One other minor quibble, the second sentence should include what volcano erupted in 181 AD. The way it is written gives the impression that it was Tambora rather than Taupo. Indeed, what is written is very good, but I don't think all angles have been explored. Cheers! *Exeunt* Ganymead | Dialogue? 20:45, 10 November 2006 (UTC)- Support - the article has been properly expanded. Nice job!
*Exeunt* Ganymead |
Dialogue? 15:02, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
- 'Answer: Thanks for your comments. It's a good comments. As per eruptive history, I've added one section about that. I have tried to find information, regarding its geological informations, but that is as far as I can get. Most Mount Tambora information in peer-reviewed journals only cover the 1815 eruption, and that's the problem. About the splitting the article, I would disagree about that. The 1815 eruption in this article only focuses on the eruption itself and one section about the long-term global effect, but I put it as a summary style. Take a look at Mount Pinatubo that most of its part explains about the 1991 eruption and its global effect. I have also clarified the second sentence you mentioned. I am going to try my best to find sources for the other angles. — Indon ( reply) — 11:30, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
- Further answer: I have expanded the article to get more angles as you have mentioned. It has now Ecosystem and Monitoring sections to describe the current situation in the mountain. — Indon ( reply) — 10:34, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
- Support Well presented. Well done Indon SatuSuro 01:49, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
- Request - please explain further about comprehensiveness - perhaps Krakatoa and Mount Merapi are as important to compare as is Pinatubo.
SatuSuro 04:19, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
- The reason I chose Pinatubo was that it is a featured article on a volcano. Indeed, I did miss Mauna Loa when I was searching for an article to compare this with. Certainly Mauna Loa is also a good volcano article. *Exeunt* Ganymead | Dialogue? 06:34, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
- Request - please explain further about comprehensiveness - perhaps Krakatoa and Mount Merapi are as important to compare as is Pinatubo.
SatuSuro 04:19, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
- Support
Object - Comprehensiveness, as per above. Fieari 03:58, 11 November 2006 (UTC)I'm satisfied now. Fieari 17:24, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
- Support a very deep and still readable article. However perhaps you can expand on the "Archaeological evidence" se~ction. Meursault2004 09:33, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
Objection per Ganymede's concerns - once these are fixed up, I think it will make it.riana_ dzasta 16:56, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
- Also, the lead paragraph is a bit abrupt - there is an introductory sentence, and then it immediately goes into the 1815 incident. I know this is the most important aspect of Tambora, but perhaps one more descriptive sentence is necessary. That's all I got from a very quick read of the article, I
mightwill go through more thoroughly when I have time. riana_ dzasta 16:59, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
- Thanks for your comments. I have rephrased the lead section. You're right about the abrupt flow. I have already expanded the article, but forgot to rewrite also the lead section. —
Indon (
reply) — 11:56, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
- Good work, Indon, it's very nice now. I just have a few more minor things that should probably be cleared up.
- From Global effects: 1816 was the second coldest year in the northern hemisphere since AD 1400 (1601 was the coldest following the 1600 Huaynaputina eruption in Peru). This sentence is confusing - it should be expanded and cleared up.
- From Chronology of the eruption: Darkness enveloped an area as wide as 600 km (370 mi) away for up to two days. - Area should be quoted in sq km or sq mi, not 'km away'. Alternatively, don't use the word 'area' at all, and rewrite the sentence.
- These were the only issues that I couldn't take care of myself, I made some minor grammatical changes. riana_ dzasta 03:32, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
- Also, the lead paragraph is a bit abrupt - there is an introductory sentence, and then it immediately goes into the 1815 incident. I know this is the most important aspect of Tambora, but perhaps one more descriptive sentence is necessary. That's all I got from a very quick read of the article, I
- Support, excellent work, Indon and others! riana_ dzasta 10:30, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
- Support Comprehensive and well-researched. I found it a fascinating article. I've done some minor copy-edits, but it reads well and is supported by good quality images and inline quotations. -- Bwmodular 13:16, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
- Support Comprehensive and interesting. I have done some copyediting on it but only to correct minor typos and phrasing. Yomangani talk 17:02, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
- Strong support A really good article, well written and very comprehensive. The images are good too, make the article even more interesting. Well done! Imo eng 11:11, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
- Support I've been watching this article's development; it's really come a long way. ~ ONUnicorn( Talk| Contribs) 16:28, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
Mount Tambora
Self-nom. This article has been peer-reviewed, in the GA process and through a number of copyedits by independent reviewers (thanks to Yomangani, Wayward, ONUnicorn and also others); now it's time for FAC. I've tried to expand a little bit, but now it seems that all materials needed for the subject are already written there. Any comments for further improvements are very welcomed. — Indon ( reply) — 16:11, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
- Support A well researched and presented article. Well done Indon. ( Caniago 17:58, 10 November 2006 (UTC))
Comment - This is a fine and fascinating article, but I don't beleive it comprehensively covers the topic. It appears to only really cover the 1815 eruption. There is the date 1967 in the infobox for the last eruption, but no mention made in the text. Has the volcano erupted anymore times? What about the parasitic cones mentioned in the geological formation section? When did they appear? My advice would be to compare this article with the Mount Pinatubo article and fill in what is missing. I might also suggest that the 1815 eruption be broken off into a separate article, perhaps one that might even merge with the article on the Year Without a Summer, being that it is such a major event with worldwide implications. One other minor quibble, the second sentence should include what volcano erupted in 181 AD. The way it is written gives the impression that it was Tambora rather than Taupo. Indeed, what is written is very good, but I don't think all angles have been explored. Cheers! *Exeunt* Ganymead | Dialogue? 20:45, 10 November 2006 (UTC)- Support - the article has been properly expanded. Nice job!
*Exeunt* Ganymead |
Dialogue? 15:02, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
- 'Answer: Thanks for your comments. It's a good comments. As per eruptive history, I've added one section about that. I have tried to find information, regarding its geological informations, but that is as far as I can get. Most Mount Tambora information in peer-reviewed journals only cover the 1815 eruption, and that's the problem. About the splitting the article, I would disagree about that. The 1815 eruption in this article only focuses on the eruption itself and one section about the long-term global effect, but I put it as a summary style. Take a look at Mount Pinatubo that most of its part explains about the 1991 eruption and its global effect. I have also clarified the second sentence you mentioned. I am going to try my best to find sources for the other angles. — Indon ( reply) — 11:30, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
- Further answer: I have expanded the article to get more angles as you have mentioned. It has now Ecosystem and Monitoring sections to describe the current situation in the mountain. — Indon ( reply) — 10:34, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
- Support Well presented. Well done Indon SatuSuro 01:49, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
- Request - please explain further about comprehensiveness - perhaps Krakatoa and Mount Merapi are as important to compare as is Pinatubo.
SatuSuro 04:19, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
- The reason I chose Pinatubo was that it is a featured article on a volcano. Indeed, I did miss Mauna Loa when I was searching for an article to compare this with. Certainly Mauna Loa is also a good volcano article. *Exeunt* Ganymead | Dialogue? 06:34, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
- Request - please explain further about comprehensiveness - perhaps Krakatoa and Mount Merapi are as important to compare as is Pinatubo.
SatuSuro 04:19, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
- Support
Object - Comprehensiveness, as per above. Fieari 03:58, 11 November 2006 (UTC)I'm satisfied now. Fieari 17:24, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
- Support a very deep and still readable article. However perhaps you can expand on the "Archaeological evidence" se~ction. Meursault2004 09:33, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
Objection per Ganymede's concerns - once these are fixed up, I think it will make it.riana_ dzasta 16:56, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
- Also, the lead paragraph is a bit abrupt - there is an introductory sentence, and then it immediately goes into the 1815 incident. I know this is the most important aspect of Tambora, but perhaps one more descriptive sentence is necessary. That's all I got from a very quick read of the article, I
mightwill go through more thoroughly when I have time. riana_ dzasta 16:59, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
- Thanks for your comments. I have rephrased the lead section. You're right about the abrupt flow. I have already expanded the article, but forgot to rewrite also the lead section. —
Indon (
reply) — 11:56, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
- Good work, Indon, it's very nice now. I just have a few more minor things that should probably be cleared up.
- From Global effects: 1816 was the second coldest year in the northern hemisphere since AD 1400 (1601 was the coldest following the 1600 Huaynaputina eruption in Peru). This sentence is confusing - it should be expanded and cleared up.
- From Chronology of the eruption: Darkness enveloped an area as wide as 600 km (370 mi) away for up to two days. - Area should be quoted in sq km or sq mi, not 'km away'. Alternatively, don't use the word 'area' at all, and rewrite the sentence.
- These were the only issues that I couldn't take care of myself, I made some minor grammatical changes. riana_ dzasta 03:32, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
- Also, the lead paragraph is a bit abrupt - there is an introductory sentence, and then it immediately goes into the 1815 incident. I know this is the most important aspect of Tambora, but perhaps one more descriptive sentence is necessary. That's all I got from a very quick read of the article, I
- Support, excellent work, Indon and others! riana_ dzasta 10:30, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
- Support Comprehensive and well-researched. I found it a fascinating article. I've done some minor copy-edits, but it reads well and is supported by good quality images and inline quotations. -- Bwmodular 13:16, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
- Support Comprehensive and interesting. I have done some copyediting on it but only to correct minor typos and phrasing. Yomangani talk 17:02, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
- Strong support A really good article, well written and very comprehensive. The images are good too, make the article even more interesting. Well done! Imo eng 11:11, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
- Support I've been watching this article's development; it's really come a long way. ~ ONUnicorn( Talk| Contribs) 16:28, 21 November 2006 (UTC)