Talk:Mount Tambora

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Featured article star Mount Tambora is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. If you can update or improve it, please do.
WikiProject Mountains
 This article is part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Mountains, a project to systematically present information on mountains. If you would like to participate, you can choose to edit the article attached to this page (see Wikipedia:Contributing FAQ for more information)
Flag Mount Tambora is part of WikiProject Indonesia, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Indonesia and Indonesia-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page. Please do not substitute this template.
Featured article FA This article has been rated as FA-Class on the quality scale.
High This article has been rated as high-importance on the importance scale.
A [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Indonesia/Peer review/}Mount Tambora|request has been made]] for this article to be peer reviewed by the Indonesia WikiProject.
Indonesian WikiProject • Indonesian notice board • Indonesian WikiPortal
Peer review Mount Tambora has had a peer review by Wikipedia editors which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.


Contents

[edit] Dates

I am trying to fill in a Selected Anniversary for April 10; in so doing, I found the Mount Tambora article which currently states that April 10 was the climactic day. However, April 15 also is credited as the big day. Based on the page history, April 10 appears to be the consensus. If there are no objections, I would like to cite this day in Selected anniversaries. Ancheta Wis 13:14, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC) Mav, sorry for the misunderstanding on the number of allowed events per day.

[edit] Info from book

Could someone add information where these quotes come from, i.e. a person's name or a book? Eruption of Mount Tambora link to Solar system, Planet Jupiter Earth ang the Sun in one LINE. Chek this website:

http://www.fourmilab.ch/cgi-bin/uncgi/Solar [IMG]http://img131.imageshack.us/img131/4535/tamborafr5.gif[/IMG]

And for detail click this also:

http://myquran.org/forum/index.php/topic,5228.0.html

Or click: http://www.theislamicforum.com/showthread.php?t=8

[edit] See

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Volcano.jpeg

Mmm.. that's a picture of Mt St Helens?? DLeonard 06:47, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Vandalism Lock?

Given that there seems to be little to add to this article and given that all of the legitimate changes in the past month have been reverts of vandalisms, both childish and subtle, is it worthwhile to ask for a vandalism-lock on this page? Ddama 18:46, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Tamboran civilization

I was reading about the recent possible discovery of the extinct civilization of Tambora in "Scientists Claim to Find Lost Civilization" (AP via Yahoo! News, February 27, 2006), and as usual went to Wikipedia to read up on what was known. Apparently nothing! We have no article on them, and this article on the eruption that killed the island population makes no direct reference to this terrible death of an entire people. (It just mentions in "Effects" a total death count similar to what the news article gives. Neither relate this number to the Tamborans.) Can we dig up some existing information about these people and add their extinction, a fairly significant event, to this article? Perhaps we'll eventually be able to create an article for the people from this. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 04:14, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

While the main article gives April 10-15 for the time of the Tambora eruption, the last quote appears to ascribe the events to the July 11-15 time frame. If the quote is accurate, this discrepancy deserves explanation. I also agree that quotes should be sourced.

[edit] Mining activities

There's a great big mine (Newmont's Batu Hijau) on that same island. It mines for copper and gold. I'll guess that what they mine is what poured out of Mount Tambora. Some info on what they found at http://www.mining-technology.com/projects/batu/ DLeonard 06:48, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Quality Assessment

I dropped the quality down 1 level. This article hasn't passed GA yet. It is of reasonbly high standard and i agree it just scrapes into the high standard - by the skin of its teeth Merbabu 07:32, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Compare it with its mate krakatoa then SatuSuro 07:46, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pictures

Can you show a picture of Tambora from it's side?

[edit] Need rewriting

This article needs a total rewriting. There is no inline citations to support claims, there is no archaelogical findings that has recently made, and there is too long unrelated story about Lake Toba. Images presented here are also misleading. Vesuvius? Smoke from Pinatubo? Therefore I'm going to make a heavy changes and to include some reliable sources. — Indon (reply) — 14:25, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, get rid of the vesuvius pic - lol. And work your magic through the rest of the article --Merbabu 14:37, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
Hahaha, all right ;-). — Indon (reply) — 14:39, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The looooooooooong unreferenced quote

Does anyone know the source of that long quote? It appears to have come from the Java page back in 2003. It had no citation there either. [1]. I have asked the editor who moved it - who is still active on wikipedia - and waiting reply. Funnily enough, I have in an excellent academic standard book Nusa Tenggara a longish quote that although not identical covers extremely similar ground. It really is uncanny. What should we do? Firstly, i don't think either reference should go in there in their entirety as quotes - maybe as paraphrased snippets.

The reference is: Guillemard, F.H.H. (1894). Stanfords Compendium of Geography and Travel (new issue) Australasia volume 2: Malaysia and the Pacific Archipelagos.. London: Edward Stanford. (cited in: Monk,, K.A., Fretes, Y., Reksodiharjo-Lilley, G. (1996). The Ecology of Nusa Tenggara and Maluku. Hong Kong: Periplus Editions Ltd.. ISBN 962-593-076-0.) --Merbabu 14:47, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi Merbabu, that also crossed my mind, but I'll get to that section later. Perhaps, I'll remove it ;-). — Indon (reply) — 11:15, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
I have another 1 page article from the time. Similar content. But I am reluctant to type it in - too long! --Merbabu 12:34, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Unsourced quotes

I moved the unsourced looong quotes here. If somebody knows their sources, then we can put them back into the article.

== Quotes from 1815 accounts of the eruption ==

=== Explosion ===

"The concussions produced by its explosions were felt at a distance of a thousand miles (1600 km) all round; and their sound is said to have been heard even at so great a distance as seventeen hundred miles (2700 km). In Java the day was darkened by clouds of ashes, thrown from the mountain to that great distance (300 miles or 500 km), and the houses, streets, and fields, were covered to the depth of several inches with the ashes that fell from the air. So great was the quantity of ashes ejected, that the roofs of houses forty miles (65 km) distant from the volcano were broken in by their weight. The effects of the eruption extended even to the western coasts of Sumatra, where masses of pumice were seen floating on the surface of the sea, several feet in thickness and many miles in extent."

=== Pyroclastic flow ===

"From the crater itself there were seen to ascend 3 fiery pyroclastic columns, which, after soaring to a great height, appeared to unite in a confused manner at their tops. Soon, the whole of the side of the mountain next to the village of Sang'ir seemed like one vast body of liquid fire. The glare was terrific, until towards evening, when it became partly obscured by the vast quantities of dust, ashes, stones, and cinders thrown up from the crater. Between nine and ten o'clock at night the ashes and stones began to fall upon the village of Sang'ir, and all round the neighbourhood of the mountain."

=== Atmospheric disturbance ===

"The heat triggered a 'dreadful whirlwind', which blew down nearly every house in the village, tossing the roofs and lighter parts high into the air. In the neighbouring sea-port the effects were even more violent, the largest trees having been torn up by the roots and whirled aloft. Before such a furious tempest no living thing could stand. Men, horses, and cattle were whirled into the air like so much chaff, and then dashed violently down on the ground. The sea rose nearly twelve feet above the highest tide-mark, sweeping away houses, trees, everything within its reach. This whirlwind lasted about 19 seconds."

=== Gradual decrease ===

"The 'awful internal thunderings of the mountain' continued with scarcely any intermission until the 11th of July, when they became more moderate, the intervals between them gradually increasing until the 15th of July, when they ceased. Almost all the villages for a long distance round the mountain were destroyed. By far the greatest part of this destruction was wrought by the violence of the whirlwind which accompanied the eruption."

[edit] Thunderous?

The chronology section mentions "thunderous detonations". I suspect this is referring to the noise rather than the electrical phenomenon thunder. Yet the article links to thunder. If it only is describing the noise, then it should be delinked, or even an alternative found. --Merbabu 12:00, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Location map

Does the article need a location map? Ie, similar to the standard (in this case Bali): [2]. What do people think? --Merbabu 13:06, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

I was thought so, but the article has already full of images. The map of Indonesia, I think, has served it. We don't have to make a locator map for Indonesia in this article, do we? Actually, I wanted to include images from commons, where it shows artefacts found during the excavation, but I guess I have to wait the article expands longer first. Just to avoid cluttering the article with too many images. — Indon (reply) — 13:14, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Good Article evaluation

GA review (see here for criteria)
  1. It is well written.
    a (prose): b (structure): c (MoS): d (jargon):
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references): b (inline citations): c (reliable): d (OR):
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    a (fair representation): b (all significant views):
  5. It is stable.
  6. It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic.
    a (tagged and captioned): b (lack of images does not in itself exclude GA): c (non-free images have fair use rationales):

Well written, structured and referenced, contains interesting facts which are depicted in a propper encyclopdic style. Definitely a Good Article.

Minor suggestions:

  • Some terms are subject specific (jargon), most are wikilinks and do not need further explanation of terms, but there are still some that would need either a short definition or wikilinking (such as "pumice")
  • I'm not particularly fond of in-text quotes, makes it read like a ocumentary rather then encyclopedic article, but that is subjective, so not realy an issue.
  • Some peacock terms still exist in the article, excusable due to the magnitude of the events described ("enormous rafts").

GA-passed. --Qyd 17:01, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Woo Hoo!!! Well done to all editors involved, but overwhelmingly credit must go to User:Indon. This is the second GA that he can claim most responsiblity for in just 1 month (see Toraja).
Some comments:
  • i hope jargon is not discouraged, correct terminology about a specific topic is vital to an understanding of it - but of course, it must be properly explained or linked.
  • I think the quotes in quote boxes are great. They provide extra depth and context to the article - a much better experience. IN this case, they show notable people's reaction to it at the time and can only help a readers full understanding. The boxes are good cos they seperate this commetary from the encyclopedic content. This clear distinction is very important to maintain.
  • I can see you point on the peacock terms. Do you have any suggestions for improvement though? thanks --Merbabu 23:47, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Comparason to other eruptions

The geological information section states tambora was: 'the only VEI 7 since AD 1400.' According to the Volcanic Explosivity Index page, the next most recent 7 was Taupo in AD 181. Which eruption is this refering to? I'm guessing Kuwae but that's listed as a VEI 6. This should be sorted out & probably linked.

The 'magnitude' collumn in the comparson table later in the section is also a little awkward. First, it never states magnitude of what, and second, the scientific notation values are difficult to compare at a glance - inclusion of the VEI rating would be helpful. --Spyforthemoon 21:42, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, you're right. I removed the clause: 'the only VEI 7 since 1400 AD', because it's a bit vague. I changed also the table based on your suggestion. Thanks ;-). — Indon (reply) — 22:58, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
According to this list (from the Smithsonian), there were no VEI 7s in the 15th century, so I suspect the statement is simply false. Good work... Mikker (...) 23:32, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
Really? Take a look closely on Tambora, 1815. You can use search function, because there is only one Tambora there. And there's only one VEI 7. :-) — Indon (reply) — 23:40, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
I'm afraid you'll have to spell it out for me. Tambora was a VEI 7... and there were no VEI 7s in the 15th century (or in between). Hence the statement 'the only VEI 7 since 1400 AD' is false. (Kuwae is a 6). Am I missing something obvious or something? Mikker (...) 21:22, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
Yes, Tambora was a VEI 7 and that is the only VEI 7 since 1400 AD. So the sentence is correct, although now I remove the clause "the only VEI 7 sine 1400 AD", because wo do not need to refer this time information. We are referring only to Tambora, right? Not to other volcanoes. Maybe I didn't get what you mean. :-) Cheers. — Indon (reply) — 10:32, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Wasn't Krakatoa the most violent eruption in modern history? Sound was heard from a greater distance and global temperatures lowered even more so that Tambora. Tambora ony killed more because of neighboring population. But as for the "largest explosion", Krakatoa was the largest, loudest, and affected global temperatures more so. The "deadliest" volcano was Tambora related to a soon after starvation of people. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.106.3.162 (talk • contribs).

Well, you have to include more than just sound. Based on VEI scale, based on the number of people were killed directly and indirectly, based on the ejecta volume, based on the longer term global impact, Mt. Tambora is more violent. You should watch some documentary movies from NGC or BBC about this. Oh, and "the most violent" term is taken literally from a peer-reviewed scientific journal. The term wasn't come up from my head. — Indon (reply) — 08:45, 8 November 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Questions on meaning of a sentence

How is Tambora existence is estimated around 57 ka BP,[6] supposed to read? It's been reverted, so I'm must have guessed wrong. But right now it just doesn't make any sense - I mean gramtically, I'm not a geologist, so I don't know if it makes sense scientifically.

I assume 'Tambora existence' is supposed to be 'Tambora's existence' or 'The existence of Tambora'. Is this right?

57 ka BP seems to be a year, but elsewhere in the article we use AD/CE dates. Why is it different here?

Also, the main verb is currently 'is estimated'. If you move the prepositional phrase and the passive voice you get: around 57 ka BP someone estimated tambora existence This can't be right. Is the existence estimated to have begun then? Something else?

I appreciate help in getting this clear. --Spyforthemoon 19:15, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

I hope I can answer your question one by one:
  1. ka is an abbreviation of kilo annum, which means 1,000 years, and BP is from Before Present. All of those have been wikilinked in the article, so you can read more on that page.
  2. I have changed in the article into "The existence of Tambora ...", thanks.
  3. BP is used for the units of time to report raw, uncalibrated ages and dates determined by radiocarbon dating. So 57 ka BP, means it is estimated by radiocarbon dating technique that the age is 57,000 years ago. We can't use AD/CE, because it is inexact to which year.
  4. Yes, the existence of Tambora is estimated to begin from 57 ka BP.
Thanks, it makes much more sense now. I did put the 'to have begun' part back in the article, but the rest seems clear now. --Spyforthemoon 16:05, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

— Indon (reply) — 13:57, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] current state of Tambora

Some information on the current state of Tambora would be good. I've seen travel books that give information on how to climb it, for example. -- Danny Yee 12:16, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

That would be great, but I don't know in which section should that be incorporated. I found also a small paragraph of hiking route. Let me think first how to combine into the article. Thanks. — Indon (reply) — 13:58, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
Maybe towards the end; after "Archaeological evidence" you could add a section called "Tambora today" and discuss tourism; hiking; wildlife; etc. Mount St. Helens, a featured article about a volcano has sections discussing the current status of the mountain, its recovery from devestation; etc. ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs) 15:36, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
Wow, you're timing is pretty good. I'm currently editing that part at the end of the article. Thanks a lot ONUnicorn. — Indon (reply) — 16:01, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
I have splitted Geological formation into Geographical settings and Geological history sections. I added information about hiking route (ascent routes) in the geographical settings and will add more about geography. Meanwhile, I've added also at the end after Archeological evidence, a new section about seismic monitoring. I avoid to name the section into "Tambora today" or something related to current/present, because it is not an encyclopaedic term. — Indon (reply) — 23:25, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Update

The article has been expanded to incorporate "other angles". That includes: Geographical Settings, Ecosystem and Monitoring. I hope this will pass FA. — Indon (reply) — 10:26, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Clarity

Couple of phrase I didn't understand:

  • What does this sentence mean: "the positions of the artifacts were still encapsulated as they were in 1815"? Were the artifacts encapsulated in 1815, or should it read something more like: "the artifacts were preserved in the positions they had occupied in 1815"?
  • "Sumbawa island is flanked to both the north and south by the oceanic crust, resulting in Mount Tambora rising in between" - in between what?
  • "The existence of Tambora is estimated to have begun around 57 ka BP. Its ascent has drained off a large magma chamber inside the mountain. The Mojo islet was part of this scenario in which Saleh Bay first appeared as sea basin (about 25 ka ago)." In what way is the inlet part of the scenario?
  • "After the artifacts were carbonized, it turned out to be charcoal from the heat of the magma, which is the evidence that an eruption had taken place." After they were carbonized? What turned out to be charcoal? And do we need any eveidence that an eruption had taken place? (cutting through 10ft of pumice and ash to reach the artifacts might be a clue?)

Yomanganitalk 16:15, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi thanks for your copyediting. Some of them were back and forth copyedited by reviewers. I'll try to answer the above questions based on my reading to the source:
  • Yes, the latter is better, though it was literally taken from the source.
  • The last one was copyedited. The original sentence that I wrote is: "Sumbawa island is flanked to both the north and south by the oceanic crust." only. (I will remove in between)
  • Well, during its formation "scenario", the whole mountain, including the islet, were raised by the oceanic crust.
  • That term was also literally taken. It means that there was a kind of measurement technique of which artifact's components were analyzed (this is the "carbonized" term). From the analysis, it turned out to be made from charcoal. Well, it is a scientific procedure to make sure that the artifacts were really burned and burried because of eruption, not something else. I think that is the standard procedure.
Oh sorry, the last clause is better to be removed. You're right that we don't need any evidence about the eruption. ;-)
I hope I answered your questions above. — Indon (reply) — 16:30, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
Still not quite clear on the carbonization. Something closer to:
"After they were tested using a carbonization technique, they were discovered to be composed of charcoal formed by the heat of the magma" ? Yomanganitalk 16:41, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
Yes that is better. ;-) Thanks, but I've remove a bit of redundancy. — Indon (reply) — 16:45, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] My last revert explanation

I did revert 2 edits: [3] by Panarjedde and Danny Yee with the following reasons:

  1. "The year 1816..." is redundant, because 1816 is already a year.
  2. AD is needed to define context with BC, so please do not remove it. However, Panarjedde has pointed one mistake that AD should be placed before the year and BC is after the year. I have corrected all of them in the article. Please read this.
  3. Danny Yee combined two sentences into one long sentence. I kind of disagree with it, because it makes less readable prose and prones to confusion. Smaller but crisper sentences are better.

So I hope I can explain my last revert. Thanks for your contributions. — Indon (reply) — 09:19, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Between 71,000 and 92,000 death tolls

I have reverted this number two times. To any editors who have read a source, please read first Mount_Tambora#Aftermath section. There is the explanation about different numbers. The source comes from:

Oppenheimer, Clive (2003). "Climatic, environmental and human consequences of the largest known historic eruption: Tambora volcano (Indonesia) 1815". Progress in Physical Geography 27 (2): 230-259.

where Oppenheimer explains why there are different number of deaths. The safe number is > 71,000. The figure 92,000 comes from unfounded and based untraceable references. See this article:

Tanguy, J.-C., Scarth, A., Ribière, C., Tjetjep, W. S. (1998). "Victims from volcanic eruptions: a revised database". Bulletin of Volcanology 60 (2): 137-144.

which explains the figures in detail.

So, before changing any numbers, please read the whole article first. — Indon (reply) — 09:08, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../m/o/u/Talk%7EMount_Tambora_e65a.html"