Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of largest volcanic eruptions/archive1: Difference between revisions

World's largest eruptions (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

• Featured list candidates/World's largest eruptions/archive1

Nominator(s): QFL 24-7 ^{bla ¤ cntrb ¤ kids ¤ pics ¤ vids} 17:01, 15 August 2010 (UTC), ResMar[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because it may be the most complete and usable list of its kind anywhere on the internet, and passes WP:Featured list criteria. I should not that the list did not go through a formal peer review (as it is not required to do so), but did go through an extensive informal peer review on my talk page, my sandbox talk page, and the WikiVolc talk page. QFL 24-7 ^{bla ¤ cntrb ¤ kids ¤ pics ¤ vids} 17:01, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Restarted, old version.
• Director's note I have restarted this nomination because it was growing prohibitively long with commentary, and the consensus was unclear. Can all reviewers please restate their opinions and list whatever concerns they have left? Dabomb87 (talk) 21:50, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Prose/lead: As a novice to the subject, I think the lead is excellent.
• Comprehensiveness: Obviously this can never be a complete list, so I would defer to the three experts on this point.
• Structure: Very good.
• Style: I still question whether a better image could be found, but it's certainly not a deal breaker.
• Stability: Whether or not the content of this can be considered stable will largely depend on the outcome of this discussion. Although long-winded, the previous discussion and editing pattern was constructive, and there is no reason to assume that won't continue.
• Summary: I'll check that the references back up the prose, and do a little bit of random sampling for factual accuracy in the tables. Assuming no problems there I'm close to supporting, but will wait until there is consensus from the experts that the list is as comprehensive as can reasonably be expected. --WFC-- 00:05, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The page has improved a lot, especially in comprehensiveness, but I don't think it's there yet. I'm hopeful that we can bring it into line with the FL criteria vithin the next week or so, though. Taking the criteria one by one:

1. Prose. I think bigger issues should be addressed before we worry about this.

2. Lead. The lead seems to meander a bit. More importantly it has an out-of-date scope, which needs to be revised now that the page includes a sub-list of large effusive eruptions.

2. Comprehensiveness. This aspect is much improved since the original nom, and is probably good enough.

(a) The page now covers the scope implied by its title (i.e. the largest known eruptions, including effusive ones). I'm not sure how useful the annotations in the Notes column are to readers, but this isn't something I feel strongly about.

(b) The page now sits comfortably as a standalone list.

4. Structure. This page seems very hard to follow, IMO, due to LIPs and effusive eruptions being elided, the consequent inaccuracies in the lead section, and the absence of a clear explanation about how LIPs fit into the topic. It does have sensible section headings and table sort facilities. Unfortunately the DRE/tephra confusion makes the default ordering of the explosive eruptions table misleading in places. I'll raise this latter point on the talk page to begin with, to avoid cluttering up the discussion here.

5. Style. This seems okay at first glance, although it needs a light copyedit to get rid of a couple of minor issues like run-on sentences and capitals inside sentences. I haven't checked the citations. A few images could help a lot, e.g. to illustrate the areas affected by recent examples of explosive and effusive quakes.

6. Stability. It has changed a lot during the featured list process, but I'm not avare of any edit wars.

I hope I'll have time tomorrow to start helping to address the outstanding issues. By the way, I certainly don't claim to be an expert. --Avenue (talk) 09:33, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Agree that the list has improved quite a bit. But I still think the list should be renamed List of largest volcanic eruptions, so that it is consistent with other lists (e.g. List of largest buildings in the world).—Chris!_c/t 19:48, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

• There are some abbreviations in the volcano/eruption column such as "P2O5", "PAV F",... that should be explained in a footnote or so.
• Should the "Date" column be renamed to "Age"?
• Sorting of the date columns does not work.
• There is some inconsistency in the "Location" entries. Sometimes the state/country is mentioned and sometimes not. Please make it uniform. It would be more useful if this column sorted as "Country-name Sublocation-name" instead of "Sublocatoin-name Country-name".
• Unify the heading of the 4th column among the three tables.
• 4th column sorting is broken (at least) in the third table.

bamse (talk) 20:57, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have no big issues with the suggestions above, and welcome anyone to change them, as I have gotten bogged down with real life lately. I will do what I can, which is not much. As far as expert agreement, I think what Avenue addresses above is quite appropriate, and once these changes are made, it should be fine. We have had an epic debate over the presentation of this list, but it has been civil, and no edit warring has taken place... we have, for the most (99%) part, gradually come to an agreement. The name issue I thought was previously decided, but again, any consensus to change the name is fine. I think the current name is fine (since many, MANY FL do not start with "List of") with the "List of" redirect. If a change is agreed upon, that is fine, but I believe we had this discussion, and more people wanted it to stay the way it is. OK, if there is something specific anyone needs me to do, I am happy to (try to) help, and a talk message to me would be welcome. Otherwise, I will pitch in as I can, but I think the list is, in general, in great shape, much better than my initial draft. QFL 24-7 ^{bla ¤ cntrb ¤ kids ¤ pics ¤ vids} 00:15, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]