Wikipedia:Featured article review/Mount Tambora/archive1

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was delisted by Casliber via FACBot (talk) 3:01, 2 December 2018 (UTC) [1].

Mount Tambora edit

Notified: ONUnicorn, Meursault2004, JarrahTree, Materialscientist, GeoWriter, Anthony Appleyard, WikiProject Indonesia, WikiProject Volcanoes

Review section edit

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]

@Jo-Jo Eumerus:, let me take a look at your comments and improve the article. We will discuss this on the talk page of the article further. Tisquesusa (talk) 20:09, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

FARC section edit

Issues raised in the review section focused on sourcing and prose. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:48, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

this one should be ok with some light copy editing and a few cites. Will report back before year end. Ceoil (talk) 18:07, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Ceoil: Any update on this? Nikkimaria (talk) 18:17, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delayed but not forgotten. Will give update in 1 week. Thanks for patience. Ceoil (talk) 18:26, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ping? Nikkimaria (talk) 14:38, 24 February 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:

"The 1815 eruption was the largest ~~volcanic eruption~~ in recorded history"

"After a large magma chamber inside the mountain filled over ~~the course of~~ several decades"

Food crops "failing" is awkward

"Heavy volcanic ash falls were observed as far away as" > "Heavy volcanic ash fell as far away as" - this suggested change might be subjective as I'm not a geologist, but it seems to retain its meaning.

"1816 became known as..." kinda flabby. How about "1816 is called...." or thereabouts.

Lots of mentions of "the 1815 eruption" - you can probably axe the date from most. It's assumed by the reader.

Hopefully the article is given a facelift per above. —Deckiller (t-c-l) 16:30, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delist. Verifiability: unsourced statements tagged since September 2017. Prose, structure and comprehensiveness: stubby paragraphs and a single sentence section. DrKay (talk) 08:52, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I personally wonder if we should roll the article back to the 2006 version as a first step; it is more comprehensive and has no stubby paragraphs. Of course some uncited statements, broken citations and disambiguations would need fixing, but that can be done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 14:50, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Rollback to featured version - seems that this is mainly a case of someone compromising the featured status of the article. Kirbanzo (talk) 02:09, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Rolled back to featured version and fixed the most obvious problems. Next step is to fix the uncited material, after that updating, and then someone with better FA criteria 1x skills needs to check over. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:17, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed part of the uncited material. I note that the article paraphrases https://web.archive.org/web/20071024202358/http://www.vsi.esdm.go.id/volcanoes/tambora/geology.html and https://volcano.si.edu/volcano.cfm?vn=264040 rather closely at times; anyone willing to rewrite these parts? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 21:01, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Got almost all issues with sourcing fixed, save for 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 Tambora which I can't find a source for. Help? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 11:38, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Ceoil, Deckiller, DrKay, and Kirbanzo: Can you give an update given the rollback? Nikkimaria (talk) 14:53, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Postscriptum: I've looked for updates but it doesn't seem like there was a lot of new research and information between now and 2006 on the volcano. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:02, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The rollback was the right thing to do. I am keep now on this. Great work from Jo-Jo Eumerus. Ceoil (talk) 16:38, 17 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?

Added "The" Hanif Al Husaini (talk) 13:18, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"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?

Based on the source, after the paved road ends, one has to continue on a hiking track to reach the caldera. I don't know how to word that. Hanif Al Husaini (talk) 13:18, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"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 ..."

Fixed to "Radiocarbon dating has established..." Hanif Al Husaini (talk) 13:18, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"... 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".

Fixed Hanif Al Husaini (talk) 13:18, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Have you looked at the rest of the article as well? Eric Corbett 15:45, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The staccato style of short sentences does not flow very well, hardly "engaging". Corbett 11:33, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Eric is raising general problems with the article, and using specif, non exhaustive, examples to illustrate. He tends to be right about these things. To summaries, and as a list to work through, these are,

Lack of clarity in some areas leading to ambiguity
Staccato writing style - short sentences and over puncation
General MOS issues (which I see are largely fixed since he posted) Ceoil (talk) 16:01, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Would like to see this cited - "Since 1972, a commercial logging company operated in the area, posing a threat to the rain forest." Ceoil (talk) 16:41, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Checked against source used as reference, it seems to hold up. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:55, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks; will duplicate the ref after the statement.

1816 was the second-coldest year in the northern hemisphere since 1400, after 1601 (following the 1600 Huaynaputina eruption in Peru).[4] - Cant parse this. Ceoil (talk) 17:27, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It says that 1816 was the year with the second-coldest northern hemisphere temperatures after 1400. With the coldest year being 1601, the year after the Huaynaputina eruption. I don't know how to reword this. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:14, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I dont either, so have cut mention of 1601 altogether, and this was rather garbled and confusing. I don't think the current version lacks impact. Ceoil (talk) 22:07, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Aand I just noticed that the article does not mention the 1257 Samalas eruption. Argh. Added it... Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:14, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Txs, reworded this a bit. Is it ok in the monitoring sect to make the statement "There has been no significant increase in seismic activity since the 1880 eruption" read that the recient findings indicate that...can be directly attributed to the Directorate of Volcanology and Geological Hazard Mitigation. Atm, its unclear and part of of a series of run on sentences that may be seen as non sequiturs. Ceoil (talk) 21:04, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it is since there have been episodes of increased earthquake and steaming activity. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 21:17, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I wonder if this article is mis-titled; its hardly a geographic survey of Mount Tambora per say, I notice deficiencies in coverage of e.g. its bird (weakly covered) and animal (not at all) population not to mind human habitation, or its general history, political governance, and so forth. And there is very little on theories of its early tectonic formation. Would "Volcanic activity of Mount Tambora" be better. Ceoil (talk) 22:32, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Otherwise have c/e'd, mostly trying to remove ambiguity and improving flow. Ceoil (talk) 23:53, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

See, to me it looks like there is enough coverage of that material (a paragraph mainly dedicated to birds, for example). Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:06, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delist per Sisyphus, who knows mountains. Outriggr (talk) 02:19, 14 August 2018 (UTC) Comment. A lot of work has been done in the last month by a number of us. I think the article is close to a Keep, but like Ceoil I wonder about its comprehensiveness (though not to the extent that he does--e.g. "political governance"...). To that end I have left a question at Wikiproject Geology. The sentence with "caused by exsolution a high pressure magma fluid" is missing a preposition, presumably, but Id' prefer someone with more geo knowledge fix that. Outriggr (talk) 03:25, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Im fine now on prose, I think we have collectively worked through each of the issues raised by Eric in a clam and sedated manner, though I recognise no good deed goes unturned, and our heads could be kicked in at any moment by gremlins from north or south. However I dont so much share your concerns about breath of sources, hard ass as I am; Jo-Jo is grandfathering this re sources, has been impressive when taken to task, and I am inclined to take with good faith. I know this is double voting and said this before, but am keep also, per Ouriggr. Ceoil (talk) 03:47, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
delist For such a major topic the content is very small. I would expect at least double the amount of content. A lot of work to look that information up and write about it is needed. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 07:50, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The reason why the "content is very small" is because most of it is supposed to be on 1815 eruption of Mount Tambora. The volcano itself is not well known outside of the 1815 eruption. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:48, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This has stalled after Graeme's comment, but Jo-Jo Eumerus gives sound reasoning, and would like to reiterate my Keep vote. Ceoil (talk) 14:43, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delist~~

There are still a number of statements which are unreferenced.
The lead refers twice to the 1815 eruption as if it has already been mentioned before describing it.
"archaeologists discovered the remains of a civilization destroyed and buried by the 1815 eruption. Known as the "Pompeii of the East"" This is grotesque exaggeration in the lead. The main text describes the excavation of one ordinary local house which seems to have been compared with Pompeii by the lead excavator purely because is was deeply buried and then described as a lost civilisation by the press.
The lead is an awkward mix of referenced and unreferenced statements.
"Tambora is located 340 kilometres (210 mi) north of the Java Trench system and as the neighbouring volcanoes Mount Rinjani on Lombok and Sangeang Api on Sumbawa, situated 150 to 190 kilometres (93 to 118 mi) above the active north-dipping Benioff zone." This is ungrammatical. "as" what?
"The convergence rate is 7.8 centimetres (3.1 in) per year." What is the convergence rate? (Presumably the speed at which the Australia plate is moving towards the Asia plate but this should be explained.)
"The formation of Tambora is estimated to have begun around 57,000 years before present (BP),[4] while a 2012 study reports an argon age of 43 ka for the first pre-caldera lava flows.[14] The formation of Tambora drained a large magma chamber pre-existing under the mountain." I do not understand this. I do not have access to the source, but it appears to say that 57,000 years ago an upwelling of magma increased the height of the mountain. So how is this the formation of Tambora rather than one episode in its history? Also BP and ka are mixed in one sentence.
I have not continued reviewing beyond here as it seems clear to me that the article is well below FA standard. Dudley Miles (talk) 10:23, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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]

@Outriggr: I have to clarify the scale - what I meant was (in reply to this) is that for many many FARs...nothing much happens. I have been very happy that stuff has happened here overall. Apologies if it didn't come over that way. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 22:13, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delist. I think Dudley's comments are fair, and they've not been addressed. DrKay (talk) 10:24, 12 August 2018 (UTC) Confirming delist after second re-visit, third visit. Each time I've visited the article the same problem is evident: reliability/unsourced statements. There are still unsoured statements in the article and those that are there are not verifiable. I examined three of the first four lines in the "Comparison of major volcanic eruptions" table: (1) the article says Taupo erupted at a VEI of more than 6 in 181 AD: Smithsonian source says it may have been 6 ("6?") around 230 AD and Oppenheimer says it erupted around 181 (not in 181) and doesn't give a VEI; (2) the article says Paektu erupted in 969 at VEI more than 6 but links to an article that says 946 at VEI 7: Smithsonian says it erupted around 1000 AD with a possible VEI of 7 and Oppenheimer says around 969 without giving a VEI. I don't see Kuwae (row 4) mentioned at the Smithsonian and Oppenheimer doesn't give a VEI and again says it erupted around 1452 not in 1452. DrKay (talk) 11:47, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I have tried my best to:

Add several new references

Add information from the references (existing and new) to shift the focus of the article towards the actual volcano and less on the 1815 eruption

Update all the accessdates

Remove dead links or replaced them with live ones

Rewrite the prose where indeed it was staccato or not professional

Add relevant images

Address the remaining issues by @Dudley Miles:@DrKay:@Casliber:

Tisquesusa (talk) 19:05, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies for the time it has taken for me to come back to this. Tisquesusa has greatly improved the article and I have struck my 'delist', but there are still some issues.

The lead considerably exaggerates the effects of the 1815 eruption. It says "The eruption caused global climate anomalies in the following years, while 1816 became known as the "year without a summer" due to the impact on North American and European weather. In the Northern Hemisphere, crops failed and livestock died, resulting in the worst famine of the century.". Oppenheimer says that the effects in North America were confined to the north-east US and the Canadian maritime provinces. Also the main text says that it was only the worst famine of the century in some European cities.

I have deleted one unreferenced statement but there are still ones in the first paragraph of 'Aftermath' and Global effects'.

The comments about a lost culture in the lead and the first two paragraphs of 'Culture' are based on one dodgy press release and press reports based on it. I would delete and expand the third paragraph in the section, which appears to be based on a reliable source. I would also delete the poem at the end of the section, which appears to be reflect prejudice of a neighbouring people against the villages which were destroyed. Dudley Miles (talk) 21:30, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

December question edit

So, where are we with this one? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 21:06, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Jo-Jo Eumerus: do you think it has improved to the point where it fulfils FA criteria or do you still think it should be delisted? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:19, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There are still a bunch of unsourced sentences, so I am thinking not. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 10:06, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Closing note: This removal candidate has been delisted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please leave the {{featured article review}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. (given this has been open for over a year, and still no consensus) Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:01, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.