Talk:Monowai Seamount
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is part of WikiProject Volcanoes, a project to systematically present information on volcanoes, volcanology, igneous petrology, and related subjects. If you would like to participate, you can choose to edit the article attached to this page (see Wikipedia:Contributing FAQ for more information), or join by visiting the project page. |
|
| Stub | This article has been rated as Stub-Class on the quality scale. | |
| Mid | This article has been rated as Mid-importance to WikiProject Volcanoes on the project's importance scale. | |
| If you have rated this article please consider adding assessment comments. | ||
 |
Monowai Seamount is part of WikiProject New Zealand, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of New Zealand and New Zealand-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page. | ||
| Stub | This article has been rated as stub-Class on the quality scale. | ||
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale. | ||
|
Assessment comments
|
|||
[edit] Monowai 2008
Just a comment, but: http://www.stuff.co.nz/4455483a10.html indicates this volcano is currently erupting. I removed the references to "Last erupted in 2006" as a result of this information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.123.128.114 (talk) 03:03, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
- This website is definitely non-academic. "Big acoustic event" is not an eruption. See also National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research website. I couldn't find there any info about supposed eruption. When confirmed by professional sources, I would not have problem with it. - Darwinek (talk) 14:27, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
- I'm in no hurry, so fine -- we'll wait for an "academic" confirmation of an eruption before updating the latest eruption date. But note that while it's often desirable, there is no requirement in Wikipedia for footnotes to be from peer-reviewed academic sources. The news report quotes academics, and the news report refers to an eruption in progress. The one area in which it falls short is that it doesn't directly quote an academic saying "an eruption is in progress". — Myasuda (talk) 03:19, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
- Agree, better wait for that. You know, I always try to keep eruption dates on reliable level. I revert every week anonymous IPs inserting revelations about "new eruptions" from "reliable sources" like CNN and other news. Not every activity is an eruption, most common mistake is that when volcano is spewing ash it is an eruption. It looks spectacular on tv news but it is not an eruption even if nice blonde journalists tell so. :) Eruption are an "events that involve explosive ejections of fragmental material, the effusion of liquid lava, or both." This, as for now, doesn't apply here. - Darwinek (talk) 08:21, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
- I'm in no hurry, so fine -- we'll wait for an "academic" confirmation of an eruption before updating the latest eruption date. But note that while it's often desirable, there is no requirement in Wikipedia for footnotes to be from peer-reviewed academic sources. The news report quotes academics, and the news report refers to an eruption in progress. The one area in which it falls short is that it doesn't directly quote an academic saying "an eruption is in progress". — Myasuda (talk) 03:19, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
- The question is then, given the relative obscurity of the volcano, it may be some time before the information can be accurately cited. In which case the information on Wiki will clearly be wrong until then (presuming that the media site is right of course). Could a note be added that media have reported activity and this is yet to be confirmed? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ambic (talk • contribs) 08:43, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
