Wikipedia:Peer review/Minoan eruption/archive1

Minoan eruption

I would like to get feedback on the writing style (we've focused on cleaning it up), references, level of interest, and what can be added and/or improved to get it to FAC. Orangemarlin 01:38, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am not very satisfied with the overall arrangement of the article. I wish I could read German because I think examining their version would be useful. I think part of the problem is there is is no real rundown of how the eruption happened. At one point the article mentions there were three phases but it never explains what the phases were or how far apart they happened. I also think the historical accounts that possibly parallel the eruptions should be discussed along with the dating. Right now they end up being very small paragraphs without much context. Watch out for weasel words like It has been proposed that one or more of ten plagues may be attributed to the eruption of Thera, According to several researchers, tsunamis caused by pyroclastic flows and caldera collapse destroyed the navy, Some scientists correlate a volcanic winter from the Minoan eruption with Chinese records, etc. The last thing I would say is that the article has some interesting hints about the history of scholarship in this areas. Several places say "It was onces believed", or "it is now known". I would love to see this article completely tell story of old theories and how they have been discredited or changed over the years.--BirgitteSB 17:49, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your comments. I agree on the weasel wording, and structure. I'm going to see about upgrading it over the next few days. Orangemarlin 20:01, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

BTW the German article uses lots of english language references. It might be worth looking their list over for anything new and interesting.--BirgitteSB 21:40, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've already swiped a few English speaking references from them!!! :) I too wish I could speak German fluently. However, my skills basically are good enough to order two beers, a pretzel, and requesting directions to the hotel after consuming the first two items in large quantities. There might be some new ones to check out. Thanks.

Although much more recent, you might want to look at how the FA 1980 eruption of Mount St. Helens is organized. One paragraph of the lead section is also not enough to properly summarize the whole article. See WP:LEAD. I also agree with Birgitte's points and feel that a more thorough treatment of the topic is needed (although what is there is pretty darn good already). And no mention of any of the hypothesis that this the inspiration of Plato's tale of Atlantis? In fact, the lead hints at this and many of the references' have titles that include the term. No mention of the Reed Sea (sic) in the Biblical part? Subsectioning and better organization in the ==Dating== and ==Physical effects== sections would be nice. --mav 20:10, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the information. There was a discussion on Atlantis, and we decided to delete it. I'll now have to look back and determine why...it might have had to do with the fact that we didn't want to discuss mythology, but I'm not sure. Yes, I am going to spend some time on improving the lead. And the Mt. St. Helens article is a good place to go, but there's probably a bit more information there. I'll work on this and drop you two notes on the progress. Orangemarlin 23:39, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]