Talk:Minoan eruption/Archive2007GA

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Minoan eruption successfully completed a GA review on June 2, 2007 thanks to the efforts of the editors below. Conversation related to the GA review process has been archived below to clear the main Talk page for ongoing improvements.

Contents 1 Good article: Fail 2 Failed "good article" nomination 3 Good Article review 4 GA nomination on hold 5 GA nomination passed

Good article: Fail

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (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):

7. Overall:

   a Pass/Fail:

Points for improvement:

• WP:LEDE - dating discussion too in depth for the introduction. I'd go for "around yyyy BC" and stick the rest in the body.
• Jargon: Explain technical terms when they first appear. E.g. "Caldera", "ignimbrite", "Plinian". At the very least give a synonym that a layman would understand
• Grammar - is often poor.
• Try to minimise the use of brackets to improve flow, and to use correct punctiation if brackets must be retained
• Consistency - e.g. spelling out units.
• Focus dating section
• Find references for "Citation needed" tags!!

In all, this article is quite a mess - after it's been tidied up, please do feel free to resubmit it for consideration! Pay particular attention to grammar and maintaining a concise and non-repetitive writing style. Verisimilus T 20:28, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Failed "good article" nomination

This article failed good article nomination. This is how the article, as of May 23, 2007, compares against the six good article criteria:

1. Well written?: English seems correct, no apparent spelling or grammar issues.

2. Factually accurate?: Accurate for the information it gives.

3. Broad in coverage?: Preface is difficult for average reader and unbalanced with the rest of the article: a) claims global climatic changes but none of that is ever discussed, b) claims several eruptions to have happened, but eruption chronologies are later ignored, c) picks radiometric dating as a subject for preface, but later lists is just one of the many conflicting dating methods and actually dismisses the problem completely ("there are no current grounds for thinking that the Egyptian historical chronology could be out by more than a few years"); the favourite nonsense of Atlantis could be saved for the Santorini article where it already has its long chapter.

4. Neutral point of view?: Yes

5. Article stability? Lot of very recent edits

6. Images?: One; more could be acquired especially for culture related sections and volcanic materials.

When these issues are addressed, the article can be resubmitted for consideration. If you feel that this review is in error, feel free to take it to a GA review. Thank you for your work so far. — Drieakko 20:17, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Based on this review, it seems that the lead is really the most important thing to address. I think that stability is not a major issue as the recent edits were productive and relatively minor; it will probably be quite stable once we finish polishing it. As for the section on Atlantis...it's well out of there, and I totally support the removal. This review actually gives me a lot of hope that we're not too far from GA. Now back to work...Doc Tropics 20:45, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to wait a day or so to read the lead again. I'm not an image person, so I don't know how to even add one (something I should learn). The article stability would not be a problem, until we did a bunch of edits in response to the first GA. I hope I didn't offend the reviewer when I kept reverting their edits. Orangemarlin 23:53, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Heh, no worry! Keep up the good work :) --Drieakko 03:37, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Good Article review

The entire section that begins "The caldera itself was formed several hundred thousand years prior to the Minoan eruption by the collapse of the volcano which had resulted from the emptying of the magma chamber during the eruption...." must be rewritten.

I believe from what I read that this article has been well-researched, and that the various editors understand the history of this volcano, and how to write a Wikipedia article, however the use of jargon is imprecise, and I believe this is a case where trying to explain the eruption to someone completely unversed in the geology, or even the sciences, might serve the editors better to rewrite this article for a general audience--in other words, focus on explaining what is going on and limit the use of technical words, trying making the jargon paranthetical, rather than its meaning. Please rewrite this section then post on my talk page as soon as you have done so.

I think this article needs more than a little work, but it doesn't need any hard word as it has been researched, and it is at least competently edited, so instead of failing the article I have put it on hold, and will try to do some of the work myself. KP Botany 05:03, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

PS The editors also appear to have read and understood the couple of references cited that I looked up--good job. KP Botany 05:06, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm not sure how to implement your suggestions, because I'm not sure what to do with the technical jargon. I've helped work on the Evolution article, and to my eyes, it is much more technical. I hope you have time to do some edits, so I can see where you are going. This is the first article that I've had a substantial hand that is trying to get to GA status, so it's all a learning experience for me!!!! Orangemarlin 17:31, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

...which means that if the article fails GA, we can blame the funny fish entirely. But really KP, thanks for the helpful suggestions; like OM, I'm anxious to see an example or two so that we can continue polishing. In the meantime, I'll read through again on my own and see what sticks out. Doc Tropics 17:55, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to have to fail it for now after rereading this section. I apologize for the error on my part. I did read the article, but not this section in depth, as I thought it needed minor corrections. It needs more than minor corrections. I will work on the article with you, though, and you can renominate when we're done. KP Botany 18:39, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks KP. The entire section does need more work, and your most recent edit made some good improvements. Your help is much appreciated : ) Doc Tropics 18:41, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

GA nomination on hold

I think the article has improved, but there are still some issues to resolve before attaining GA status. This is how I think it compares with GA requirements:

1. As for the first requirement (It is well written),

• The lead should be expanded so that it summarizes the whole article. Currently, the historical impact of the eruption beyond the Minoan Civilization is missing. A couple of sentences should be enough.

  A little tough, but I think I got it. Orangemarlin 07:36, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

• Consider adding more links to the article; per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (links) and Wikipedia:Build the web, create links to relevant articles.

  Done. Orangemarlin 07:16, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

• Per Wikipedia:Context and Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates), months and days of the week generally should not be linked. Years, decades, and centuries can be linked if they provide context for the article.

  Fixed. Standardize to BCE format.Orangemarlin 05:57, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

• Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (numbers), there should be a non-breaking space -   between a number and the unit of measurement. For example, instead of 5 mm, use 5 mm, which when you are editing the page, should look like: 5 mm.

  Fixed. Orangemarlin 05:50, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

• Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (numbers), please spell out source units of measurements in text; for example, the Moon is 380,000 kilometres (240,000 mi) from Earth. Thus, instances such as 60 m or 7-11 cm or 30-35 km should be corrected

  Agreed with reviewer that this particular suggestion was not clear, so we are going to set it aside. Orangemarlin 05:42, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

• The titles Physical effects of the eruption and Dating the volcanic eruption should be changed to just Physical effects and Dating since it is obvious they deal with the eruption.
• The paragraph that begins On Santorini, there is a 60 m... is too short, it should be merged with the one before or the one after it.

  Merged two closely related paragraphs. Orangemarlin 07:19, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

• This sentence The eruption resulted in an estimated 30-35 km high plume, extending into the stratosphere, characteristic of a plinian eruption is way to convoluted, it should be simplified

  Simplified sentence. Orangemarlin 05:46, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

• In However, ash found in Crete is now known to have been from a precursory phase of the eruption, the word however seems to have no purpose as this sentence does not contradict the preceding one, it should be deleted.

  Fixed.Orangemarlin 05:50, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

• In Based on the observed changes to the bristlecone pine of California, "pine" should be replaced by "pines", in plural.

  One hundred edits and I missed that one. Duh. Orangemarlin 06:01, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

• In ...was much larger than the estimated 39 cubic km of Dense-Rock Equivalent (DRE), or total volume of material erupted from the volcano, published in 1991, "estimated" should be replaced by "estimate of".

  Sentence needed further clean-up. Orangemarlin 06:05, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

• The sentence The Thera volcanic events and subsequent ashfall probably sterilized the island, similar to what had occurred on Krakatau should read The Thera volcanic events and subsequent ashfall probably sterilized the island, similar to what occurred later on Krakatau

  Someone else did this, so thanks.Orangemarlin 06:11, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

• The sentence This range, however, conflicts with the previous estimate based on archaeological studies, utilizing Conventional Egyptian chronology, which is approximately 1550 BC should read However, this range conflicts with the previous estimate of 1550 BC, based on archaeological studies utilizing the Conventional Egyptian chronology

  Slightly tweaked your suggestion, but fixed it. Orangemarlin 06:14, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

• The sentence Several archaeological chronologies exist for the Late Bronze Age, each based on a point of origin for a given material culture (ie, materials from Crete, mainland Greece, Cyprus, and Canaan which were shipped to locations throughout the eastern Mediterranean) needs to be simplified and copyedited.

  Cleaned up paragraph. Confusing and conflicting information revised. Orangemarlin 06:32, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

• In At one time, it was believed that data from Greenland ice cores and dendrochronology (tree-ring dating), would be useful, the word "would" should be replaced by "could"

  Done. Orangemarlin 06:37, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

• In The late Holocene eruption of the Mount Aniakchak, a volcano in Alaska, is proposed as the most likely source of the glass in the GRIP ice core, what is the glass the sentence refers to? What does GRIP stands for? Those two things are not explained.

  Fixed. It was volcanic glass, and GRIP is an acronym for the study of Greenland ice cores, I believe. I deleted it because it really wasn't germane to the article. Orangemarlin 06:42, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

• In after researchers analyzed material from an Olive tree, why is "Olive" in capital letters?

  Fixed. I must have thought it was a tree with a feminine name. Orangemarlin 05:57, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

• as no more than 5 mm of ash had fallen anywhere on Crete would be better as as it has been discovered that no more than 5 mm of ash fell anywhere on Crete.

  Completed. Orangemarlin 06:49, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

• Earlier historians and archaeologists assumed that the effect on Minoa was more substantial because of the depth of pumice found on the sea floor. Recently, it has been established that the pumice resulted from a lateral crack in the volcano below sea level, and not directly from the eruption itself. It is not clear where was the pumice found, around Thera? near Crete?

  Fixed. It was near the Thera volcano itself. Orangemarlin 07:18, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

• In the collapse of the dynasty and the rise of the Shang dynasty, approximately dated to 1618 BC, was accompanied, "were accompanied" should replace "was accompanied".

  Fixed. Orangemarlin 05:59, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

• In it has also been suggested that the damage was caused during a war with the Hyksos, "the damage" should be replaced by "it" as it has already been mentioned previously in this sentence.

  Done. Orangemarlin 07:01, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

2. As for the second requirement (It is factually accurate and verifiable),

• The "Further reading" section should be expanded to include all of the sources used for this article, that way one can evaluate them at a glance.

  Added a few books. Orangemarlin 15:16, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

3. As for the third requirement (It is broad in its coverage), the article seems compliant.

4. As for the fourth requirement (It is neutral), the article seems compliant.

5. As for the fifth requirement (It is stable), the article seems compliant.

6. As for the sixth requirement (Any images it contains are appropriate), the article seems compliant.

Let me know when you're finished. Good luck, --Victor12 22:04, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

GA nomination passed

I've passed the article as I think it is consistent with all GA requirements. Congratulations on your work! As a suggestion, the "Further readings" section should be renamed "Bibliography", as it comprises most, if not all, of the sources used. Anyway, just a minor suggestion. Greetings, --Victor12 20:11, 2 June 2007 (UTC)