Talk:Ciomadul

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Ciomadul/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Tisquesusa (talk · contribs) 06:16, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

Review

Under review, Tisquesusa (talk) 06:16, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

Review started:

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

---

Article is getting there, but still quite some confusions exist in ages/dating, magma chambers, depths, locations, etc. Some information is missing (e.g. the closest towns and cities) and wordings are in places awkward and/or repetitive. As known from Jo-Jo Eumerus, the potential is certainly there, but needs some work to solve confusions and expand some sentences for clarity. Tisquesusa (talk) 18:29, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

1. Is it well written?

   A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:

   The introduction has very short and punctual sentences and doesn't really read as an introduction. A rewrite of the information in longer sentences would be better. Also avoid repetitive wordings, like three times "occurred" in a row in the first chapter, by using synonyms. A volcano is not "constructed" (a human process) but "formed" or "built up over time" or similar natural terms. Similar for "radiometric dates disagree with each other", I would say "deviate from each other" or "are different". The last eruption dates in the intro do not coincide with those given (and sourced) in the infobox.

First chapter

• "This volcanism occurs in a setting where the collision between the Eurasian Plate and the Tisza-Dacia microplate occurred. This is part of the collision between the African Plate and the Eurasian Plate; subduction may still be underway in the area of the Carpathians. The Vrancea zone, which is 50 kilometres (31 mi) away from Ciomadul, features ongoing earthquake activity and may be the remnant of a slab. A descending slab has indeed been imaged beneath the Vrancea zone.

• • Rewrite "occurs" twice. What about "The collision of the Eurasian Plate and Tisza-Dacia microplate [Block?] lead to the volcanism of the Ciomadul area. On a larger scale, this collision is part of the compressional tectonic movement between the African and Eurasian Plates"?
  • "The Vrancea zone, ..., features ongoing earthquake activity and may be the remnant of a slab" - the zone itself is not the remnant of a slab, that would be deep down reaching the asthenosphere. Maybe a rewording to enhance the difference between the deep tectonics and the effect at surface/near-surface (earthquakes).
  • "descending slab has indeed been imaged beneath the Vrancea zone" - indeed reads ugly and not very professional, is there a rewording possible? Like "The descending slab has been confirmed by tomographical (?) images."?
• "3 million years ago a change in the chemistry of volcanism occurred, with an increased content of potassium in the rocks. This change in composition coincided in space with the volcanic activity crossing a lineament known as the Trotus line." - I would avoid starting a sentence with a number, using Three instead. A comma should be added after the time: "Three million years ago, a change..." "...coincided in space..." - reading this I think of space (extraterrestrial), the word is awkwardly placed here and not really necessary to understand the point. What about "The change in composition is noted in various analyses along the lineament known as the Trotus line"?
• "Ciomadul is located in the southeastern Carpathians,[4] at the southeastern end..." - again repetitive wording, maybe a rewrite to avoid twice "southeastern"?
• "The idea that Ciomadul could be a still active volcano was first proposed in 1780 on the basis of its young appearance and the exhalation of gas." - exhalation? Sounds also human. "Fumarole activity"? "Degassing"? Anything more natural as a descriptive term than "exhalation"?
• "Ciomadul is formed by a complex of lava domes and lava rocks that form a south-tilting ridge..." - twice "form", what about "Ciomadul comprises a complex of lava domes, forming a south-tilting ridge..."? The lava rocks are the result of the volcanic activity and not really necessary imho to include here.
• " Individual domes include Haramul Ierbos (Fű-Haram),...." - maybe good to state at the first dome the first name is Romanian and the second (Hungarian), to be clearer to the reader?
• "The highest point of the complex is Ciomadul Mare (Nagy-Csomád) with an altitude of 1,301 metres (4,268 ft)..." - the infobox gives a value of 1298 m, here it's 3 m higher. Not a huge difference, but good to have the same value.
• "Some domes were later modified by erosion or explosive activity..." - modified doesn't read too well. What about "Some of the domes were affected by subsequent erosion or explosive activity"?
• "The whole volcanic complex ... is surrounded by a ring plain made of volcanic debris." - a ring plain? What about "a circular/semi-circular plain of volcanic debris surrounds the volcanic complex" or something along those lines?
• "They were formed in the previously existing lava domes.[13][7]" - switch the position of the refs to have the order 7-13.
• "The St. Ana crater is ... comparable with the crater of El Chichon volcano in Mexico...." - should be "El Chichón"
• "This c. 189,900 square metres (2,044,000 sq ft) large lake is known as Lake Sfânta Ana (46°07′35″N 25°53′17″E) and it lies at an altitude of 946 metres (3,104 ft)." - I'd use hectares and acres for easier reading. Also remove "it".
• "The Mohos crater is larger,... and not as deep as St. Ana, reaching a depth of 1,050 metres (3,440 ft) above sea level...." - St Ana is only 6 meters deep and Mohos even shallower. How deep is it? The indication "above sea level" is not really the way lake depths are described. Maybe "the shore of the lake is at 1055 m above sea level and the lake is 5 m deep" or so?
• "The existence of an even larger crater with a diametre 2–2.5 kilometres (1.2–1.6 mi) has been suggested..." - was this crater encompassing both St. Ana and Mohos or is it an entirely different crater?
• "At Tusnad road one of the flows has a thickness..." - After Tusnad road a comma should be placed: "At Tusnad road, ..."
• "One lapilli layer from Ciomadul has been identified 40 kilometres (25 mi) east of the volcano; it is 20–23 centimetres (7.9–9.1 in) thick." - I'd reword to "One lapilli layer, 20-23 cm thick, from Ciomadul has been registered at a distance of 40 km east of the volcano", to avoid the ";".
• "Drilling has identified the existence of an intrusion at a depth of 575 metres (1,886 ft)." - an intrusion of what rock type? Granite? Diorite?
• "The principal rock is dacite rich in potassium." - either a comma after "dacite" or reword to "The principal rock is potassium-rich dacite"
• "The rocks have a porphyric appearance and contain few vesicles. They are also very rich in crystals,[9][37] with the dominant crystal-forming minerals are biotite, hornblende and plagioclase. Less important are allanite, apatite, clinopyroxene, olivine, orthopyroxene, quartz, sphene and zircon." - Porphyritic? "They are also very rich in crystals"; a volcanic rock either contains crystals or glass, or both. So if it's "very rich in crystals" there should be glass too. If it's porphyritic, it has distinct larger crystals in a finer crystalline groundmass. Maybe a rewrite of this. "with the dominant minerals are..." - either "the dominant minerals are" or "with as dominant minerals...". "Less important" I'd say "less abundant" or "in smaller quantities" or so.
• "The composition of Ciomadul's rocks has been fairly constant throughout its evolution,[13] and the variety of its components indicate that the genesis of Ciomadul magmas involved mixing between felsic and mafic magma." - "the variety indicates"; indicate refers to the variety (singular), not the components (plural). This is an interesting point and refers back to the intrusion; what type of intrusion has been found, was that felsic, mafic or a combination of the two or different types?
• "A large proportion of crystals in the rocks consists of antecrysts and xenocrysts, making radiometric dating of the rocks difficult. These include the amphibole, biotite, feldspar and zircon" - "A large proportion of crystals in the rocks are antecrysts and xenocrysts" or "Antecrysts and xenocrysts make up a large proportion of the rock", I'd say. Also remove "the" before amphibole, etc. or rewrite to indicate more clearly that it's those minerals that are antecrysts and xenocrysts. Never heard of the term antecrysts tbh, and it's still a red link, maybe good to shortly describe what those are?
• "The temperature of the magma chamber has been estimated to be about 700–750 metres (2,300–2,460 ft), with heating of over 200 °C (360 °F) occurring before some eruptions." - the depth has been estimated at 700-750 m. 200 deg is not very high for volcanoes. How did they estimate that temperature "before eruptions"? Maybe a bit more information about this to inform the reader better?
• "Volcanic activity was most likely triggered by the injection of basaltic magma into the felsic magma chamber days or weeks before the actual eruption" - basaltic magma? I'd say mafic. Basaltic refers to mafic extrusives. The days or weeks comment seems very far-fetched about volcanic activity way before historical times, either expand on it from the source or better leave it out.
• "The amphiboles in the rocks formed at depths of 7–14 kilometres (4.3–8.7 mi).[40] The magma output of Ciomadul is about 0.009 cubic kilometres per millennium (6.8×10−5 cu mi/Gs)." - so those amphiboles are the xenocrysts then? Maybe good to expand a bit on this for clarity. Also rewrite the 0.009 km3 into m3?

Second chapter

• "Rainfall reaches 800–1,000 metres (2,600–3,300 ft), resulting in strong erosion." - Rainfall reaches "altitude"? Or should it be mm/yr? Or what do you mean by this? That it rains more at those altitudes?
• "The annual mean temperature is 7.6 °C (45.7 °F) at Sfintu Gheorghe." - first time I read about "Sfintu Gheorghe", what is it? A nearby town? How far from the volcano?
• "Around St. Ana, July temperatures reach 15 °C (59 °F) and January temperatures −5 – −6 °C (23–21 °F)." - rewrite the latter into "to", the two dashes look ugly. In general I prefer using {{convert|1|to|2|unit}} in running text and {{convert|1|-|2|unit|abbr=on}} in tables and infoboxes. Those are the maximum and minimum temperatures I reckon from "reach". But really only 15 deg at an altitude of just 1300 m in Romania in summer? Seems very low to me? If it's an average temperature I can get it, but then it's not "reach" or should be worded with "average".
• "While some glaciation occurred in the Carpathians during the ice ages, no glacial activity is recorded at Ciomadul. The volcano was unforested at that time,[23] with steppe and tundra vegetation comprising most of the reported flora." - Would be nice to know where and at which altitudes those glaciations occurred. "Unforested" reads a bit awkward, maybe "the treeline was x meters lower than today" or so?
• "A fen containing Carex lasiocarpa, Carex rostrata, Lysimachia thyrsiflora and Sphagnum angustifolium." - word "is" is missing here? Or a real sentence should be built, now it's incomplete. Also write the English names for the plants, like "silver birch (Betula pendula)"

Third chapter

• "Ciomadul has been active for over half a million years.[4] Other estimates indicate that activity did not start before 250,000 years ago. A third estimate indicates that the oldest activity occurred between 1,000,000 and 750,000 years ago, forming lava domes" - These are three quite different estimates. They need more expansion to inform the reader better. Also the first sentence stating the activity as fact clashes with the second as "other estimate".
• "...and Volcanic eruptions." - should be volcanic, not capitalised
• "A gap of about 500,000 years separates Ciomadul from the activity of other volcanoes in the area. The two oldest dates of 1,020,000 and 850,000 years ago were obtained on peripheral lava domes." - first it was said "750 ka", now "850 ka", better to have the same age indicated, so change either of the two. "A gap of about 500 ka"? Maybe better rewrite to "While the other volcanoes in the area showed volcanic activity around 1.35 Ma, volcanism at Ciomadul did not start until 850 ka" or so.
• "Activity reached a peak between c. 650,000 – 500,000 years ago, when the principal lava domes were formed. This effusive phase is also known as "old Ciomadul"" - I'd rewrite this to "when the principal lava domes were formed, an effusive phase known as "old Ciomadul"" or "called old Ciomadul", to not have the short sentence and to avoid the "also" that is redundant here.
• "Other dating techniques indicate a start of activity less than 250,000 years ago." - other than what? First time you mention dating techniques here.
• "The youngest lava dome was dated at 42,900 ± 1,500 years ago by uranium-thorium dating, much younger than the dates obtained by potassium-argon dating." - What I would do is rewrite this whole section to better explain the differences; what dates were given by what dating method and how much did they differ. As that is said in the introduction section, it is an important observation of this volcano.
• "There is in fact substantial disagreement between dates obtained by potassium-argon dating and uranium-thorium dating at Ciomadul. These dates indicate a construction of the central lava domes between 590,000 and 140,000 years ago." - "there is in fact" doesn't read very nicely. I would rewrite to avoid the "in fact" part. Something like "substantial differences between the dating methods exist, providing ages of x ka by method A and ages of y ka by method B". Also "central lava domes" were not "constructed". They were formed, construction is a human term. Also it seems quite unclear; earlier it was said that the bulk of the lava domes was formed between 650 and 500 ka and now 140 ka appears. Expansion and rewriting on the differences with respect to the different dating methods (and parts of the volcano?) would solve this issue.
• "Between 56,000 and 32,000 years ago, explosive activity occurred at Ciomadul. At the same time, tephra from volcanoes in Italy was deposited in Europe; it is possible that tephra also came from Ciomadul. Indeed, the age of Ciomadul's last eruption overlaps with the age of the Campanian Ignimbrite. Some tephra layers found in the Black Sea may have originated at Ciomadul." - "At the same time" is geologically a bit awkward. Better rewrite to "that timespan coincides with volcanic activity in Italy (which volcanoes?)" "It is possible" should be rewritten to "analysis has shown that..." or so. "Indeed, ..." should be avoided. "Some tephra layers found in the Black Sea", where? And what are possible other origins? Greece? Armenia?
• "An earlier explosive eruption about 55,900 ± 2,300 years ago may be the origin of the Mohos crater. The Mohos crater is certainly much older than the St. Ana crater, with one potassium-argon date being c. 220,000 years ago." - the use of "certainly" clashes with the comment in the first chapter where it's said that "distinguishing deposits from St Ana and Mohos is difficult". Also the K-Ar date of Mohos at 220 ka does not read "much older than St. Ana" if earlier dates of 850 ka to 1 Ma+ were named. I get that the older dates are from lava domes and the later Pleistocene dates from the eruptions, but then that should be spelled out more for clarity. Also, if the 55.9 ka date "may be the origin of the Mohos crater", the 220 ka date doesn't fit.
• "A phreatomagmatic deposit northeast of Mohos originated in an eruption of the Mohos crater; this eruption may be the Turia eruption, which is dated to have occurred about 51,000 ± 4,800 years ago." - "orginiated from"? The Turia eruption seems quite important as it's named specifically, but I read about it for the first time, would be good to have it introduced somewhere before.
• "A gap in volcanism followed the Piscul Pietros eruption 42,900 years ago and lasted until 31,510 years ago, when a Plinian eruption occurred. This eruption deposited 0.6 metres (2 ft 0 in) thick ash as far as 21 kilometres (13 mi) from the vent." - the Piscul Pietros was farther away, right? Yet the naming of it assumes knowledge of the reader from an introduction before this part, but I don't know about that eruption. "A gap in volcanism" -> "An apparent quiet period in volcanic activity lasted from 42.9 to 31.5 ka" or so? I would say "A layer of ash with a thickness of 60 cm was recorded as far as 21 km from the vent" or something along those lines. The layer of ash is not homogeneous in thickness, so not constant over the area. The existence of a 60 cm (better than 0.6 m) thick layer of ash at such a distance indicates a much higher thickness closer to the volcano.
• "Alternatively, 38,900 ± 1,700 years ago a subplinian eruption occurred at Ciomadul; it may have formed the St. Ana crater. This date corresponds to that of the so-called "MK-202" tephra." - huh? I just read that there was a "gap in volcanism" from 42.9 to 31.5 ka, but now there was volcanism at 38.9 ka?
• "The age of the last eruption is controversial." - ah, ok, that explains the issue. So the gap is still there? Better rewrite this section to much better explain what's happening; make a choice between sources or introduce them in the beginning; "most authors agree on timeline X, with one (?) publication providing different dates"...
• "In 1994, radiocarbon dating yielded an age of 10,700 ± 800 years before present ago from a pyroclastic flow. " - Before Present is capitalised and "before present ago" is a tautology.
• "Later, paleosoils and other samples from the same flow were used to deduce similar ages of >36,770, 42,650 and >35,670, >35,520 years before present, respectively." - Later refers to more recent publications than 1994 I guess. I would write it like that, possibly including the year of publication. The > signs read ugly here. "Respectively" should refer to a sequence named before, but that isn't there. If it refers to "paleosoils and other samples", then it should be expanded. Like "The paleosoil analyses conducted in 2015 provided ages of 36,770 and 42,650 years ago, while the "other samples" (which kind of samples?) were dated at 35,670 and 35,520 years Before Present".
• "Thus this youngest age estimate was discarded." - ehh, either name that old publication of 1994 providing a very young age compared to the rest at the end or the beginning or leave it out completely, making the choice as an author that more recent and more complete research supercedes earlier data. Still, the "gap" is now not solved, while I thought it would be when reading "discarded". Because we have 4 ages between 42.9 and 31.5 ka, the ages of the supposed "gap"?
• "In 2010, further research identified two younger eruptions, one occurring 39,000 years before present and the other 27,500 years before present.[7] Much older dates obtained by potassium-argon dating are not considered reliable.[46] Both of these eruptions took place at St. Ana and imply a repose period between eruptions of over 10,000 years." - BP is capitalised again, but this "much older K-Ar dates are not considered reliable" comment is placed here again. A proper introduction of the different methods, authors and differences solves this. Also when you refer to "both these" (not both of these?) eruptions took place... it should immediately follow the eruptions described, not with the awkward sentence placed in between. The repose period (nice wording!) is that one that you described earlier "from 42.9 to 31.5 ka". But still, 39 ka is in this period and now the period lasts from 39 to 27.5 ka? A thorough rewrite of this whole section would solve the issues the reader has in understanding the differences in dates and on what basis they were concluded (samples, soils, dating methods, etc.) and the timing of the "gap" or "repose period" (much better).
• "The St. Ana lake already existed 26,000 years ago." - A) on what basis has this been identified? B) the placement of this comment is awkward I'd say. Either include it in the St. Ana Lake (capitalised?) section under the first chapter, or expand this section with the dating information and keep it here.
• "These eruptions were fed by different magmas, with the younger eruption coming from deeper magma chambers (5–12 kilometres (3.1–7.5 mi) versus 4 kilometres (2.5 mi)) and involving more primitive magma." - "These eruptions", which? The ones from the satellite vent and the main vent? Or the eruptions of 39 and 27.5 ka? Also you talk about "different magmas", are those the mafic and felsic magmas mentioned before? The "deeper magma chamber" at max 12 km depth clashes with the next paragraph where it's located at "8-20 km" (should be 8 to 20 anyway in running text)? And what is "primitive magma"? Older magma? Different crystalline composition?
• "Other dates obtained by uranium-thorium dating indicate an age of 32,600 ± 1,000 years ago for the youngest eruption." - dates indicate an age? Dates and age are the same. Data obtained by <dating method> indicate an age of...". But again, the rewriting of the section should solve this with the different dating methods introduced and what they show as youngest, oldest or common dates.
• "This youngest eruption was probably very violent; the Roxolany Tephra which may be associated with it has been found as far as Odessa, Ukraine, 350 kilometres (220 mi) away from Ciomadul. This tephra had been dated at 29,600 calibrated radiocarbon years ago." - This youngest eruption of 32.6 ka is older than an earlier "youngest eruption" names at 27.5 ka, 31.5 ka and way older than the 10.7 ka of 1994 which is probably an erroneous date anyway. But taking all those ages into consideration, 32.6 ka cannot be the "youngest". Also "the Roxolany Tephra which may be associated with it..." doesn't read nicely. Maybe better to describe that Roxolany Tephra, identified in Odessa in more detail and then link it to the 32.6 ka eruption. Yet, I fail to see that link because a tephra dated at 29.6 ka cannot come from the "youngest" eruption taking place at minimum 31.6 (32.6 - 1) ka? 2000 years difference?
• "Presently, Ciomadul displays seismic activity, release of carbon dioxide from mofettas and anomalous heat flow, reaching 85–120 watts per square metre (0.0106–0.0150 hp/sq ft). Exhalations of carbon dioxide, hydrogen sulfide and mostly abiotic methane have been found at Ciomadul. The total output of carbon dioxide is about 229 tonnes (225 long tons; 252 short tons) per year and of methane 1.3 tonnes (1.3 long tons; 1.4 short tons) per year." - this section belongs in a separate subchapter "Recent activity". "Exhalations" is not the right word, as commented before. Twice "per year" is unnecessary.
• "At depths of 8–20 kilometres (5.0–12.4 mi), a magma chamber has been identified beneath Ciomadul,[13][21] based on magnetotelluric data.[60] A deeper basaltic melt zone may also exist." - mafic (Si composition), not basaltic (extrusive). Also this should be part of an introduction under this chapter or in the regional geology one; the magma chamber(s) present, the compositions, depths and how they relate to the extrusive volcanism in terms of dates, composition, different vents or not, etc.
• "A chance of renewed volcanic activity is always present if the magma chamber is unfrozen." - freezing seems quite unlikely at those depths and temperatures, not really the right word for this. The chance is always present doesn't read too well. The risk is present or the chance is there. Also this should be either under the subchapter "recent activity" or completely under "future threats".
• "Further, a zone of low seismic velocity has been identified in the lower crust and upper mantle." - sentence seems quite isolated here. What does it mean for the eruptions/magma chamber? What depths does this zone of low seismic velocity occur? What method was used to identify this?

Fourth chapter

• "Hydrothermal activity has been noted at Ciomadul and Tusnand-Bai, including a high temperature system with temperatures exceeding 225 °C (437 °F). The Tusnand-Bai springs have temperatures of 15–23 °C (59–73 °F) and discharge salty, carbon dioxide-rich water which emerges from pyroclastic deposits" - should be under the subchapter of "recent activity". If the Tusnand Bai springs (where are they located and how do they relate to Ciomadul?) have temperatures so low, the "high temperature system" must be exclusively at Ciomadul? Or also in Tusnand-Bai high T hydrothermal activity is noted just not resulting in the temperate springs there?

1. B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:

   ok, with some comments about "words to watch" included under 1a.

2. Is it verifiable with no original research?

   A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:

   Very nice to have all references accessible online for verification. The order is not alphabetical though and there are two distinct publications by Harangi et al. in 2015. You've included the date for both to show the difference, but the reflist does not indicate that, the pages of each do. I use "2015a" and "2015b" in such a case and refer to each of them separately in the reflist. Also the name of Harangi is sometimes including his full first name, or Sz or S. Best to have the same for at least when only the initial is given. When I know the first names of the authors I write them in full in every case to prevent confusion and be more precise.

   B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:

   All good publications from respectable journals

   C. It contains no original research:

   ok

   D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:

   ok

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

   I miss information on nearby towns, how far and where they are and with how many inhabitants, especially considering the last chapter, where future activity is noted. That means the volcano forms (not "constitutes") a possible threat to mankind.

   B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):

   ok

4. Is it neutral?

   It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:

   ok

5. Is it stable?

   It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:

   ok

6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   ok

   B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

   Images of the Sfânta Ana Lake should have captions. I prefer to use <gallery mode=packed> to avoid the white spaces. Also fit the images in 1 row, at least at my resolution (1920x1080), one image is below the others. That nice 3D animation should be a main image anyway, not as part of a general gallery.

• Images of the vegetation would be nice in a gallery too. Now it's a list of names that are all blue to read, but images would enhance the informative value.

1. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   Another nice article about a rather unique volcano in Romania, as the author knows I am thorough in my reading and reviews, and I am convinced it will be a GA after the edits suggested. Tisquesusa (talk) 18:29, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

I've opted to back out the "last eruption" date information from the infobox - infobox fields are not really suited for information that is not clear. I've reduced the instances of "occurred" by using "took place" twice - if memory serves, the sources say that the collision and volcanism occur in the same place but not explicitly that the one is cause for the other. Not sure why GVP and the other sources disagree on the height of the volcano, what's your opinion? The composition of the intrusive complex is never stated. Replaced "variety" with "diversity" as it refers to the minerals. "Antecrysts" are apparently pre-existent crystals that end up in magma; perhaps stuff for a {{Note}} explanation? Source on the magma chamber injection uses "mafic". The amphiboles don't appear to be antecrysts. Will work on the rest of the stuff too. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:57, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Took care of the climate and vegetation section. Sources used don't talk about the exact parameters of glaciation elsewhere. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 21:28, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

@Tisquesusa: Alright, seems like I got most stuff save for some things I commented on above and below. Seems like you know the topic well enough that I am going to ask for help on some issues:

• The 750,000 vs 850,000 issue - the source for the latter talks only about the peripheral lava domes, the source for the former is not specific. The source also explicitly talks about an about 500,000 year gap between Ciomadul's activity and the activity of neighbouring volcanoes.
• Can you clarify your suggestion "when the principal lava domes were formed, an effusive phase known as "old Ciomadul"" or "called old Ciomadul", it's ungrammatical at this moment.
• I don't think that "the bulk of the lava domes" and "the central lava domes" are the same thing, so I am not certain the diverging age data contradict each other - not certain how the flow of a paragraph discussing them as well as the diverging dating methods should look like.
• Source does not specify which volcanoes in Italy but I'd imagine that the Phlegrean Fields are meant.
• As far as I know it ain't strictly demonstrated that one or more of these tephra layers actually come from Ciomadul, nor are there specific links to other volcanoes that are demonstrated (something I discuss a little in Mount Erciyes).
• The "much older" is a comparison between Mohos and St. Ana, not with the lava domes which are the older formation.
• The "gap of volcanism" exists in one of the proposed chronologies; there are many proposals there and they are driving my brain crazy. That's why the contradicting information starts with "alternatively"
• I disagree with changing the wording of the ash deposition, tho', the current wording seems better to me. I notice that the source discusses only one site, so I guess they didn't measure the thickness of ash layers from that eruption closer to the edifice.
• The paleosoils ages are for the soils, not necessarily volcanic activity. The charcoal samples certainly are on the flow - would it be better if this info was move to the above section as it clashes with the supposed "gap"?
• The magma chamber depth in the history section refers to these two eruptions, the 8-20 is the present day chamber (and since no historical activity has occurred, was obtained by different methods I'd imagine).
• "Different magmas" does not refer to mafic vs. felsic I think. The "primitive" probably needs another {{Note}}
• Is using "basaltic" for unerupted magma really that incorrect? Most sources I see don't have such reservations.
• I don't think that magma chambers are ever part of "regional geology".
• I think that Tusnand-Bai is the same place as Băile Tușnad - opinions?
• The "high temperature" is definitively about the conditions at depth.
• On the references list, I think coauthors is a better disambig
• The text does include information on nearby towns, actually. There is no source information on their exact distance, however. Is population size important?
• That date format in the citations does not like being disambiguated.
• I've added captions to the first image in each gallery, I don't think adding more than one caption is useful as they all show mostly the same thing.

I think I got the other things, if no please sing out. Starting to think that volcanoes with chronology disputes are difficult to write about. Perhaps add a sentence somewhere to say that dating techniques yield different results and some are not considered to be trustworthy, and thus different people have different ideas about the chronology. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 13:11, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

Ciomadul->Ciomad Mountains name change

Just out of curiosity, why was this renamed to Ciomad Mountains? As far as I can tell "Ciomadul" is far more common. Although it reminds me that I need to apply this alternative name as well, so [link]. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 18:44, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

-ul is a definite article in Romanian, in this case its use is not warranted in the article title.[[1]]. P12k (talk) 19:08, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

That's for the article titles in English. Where do we apply this to non-English article suffixes? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 13:55, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

The definite article carries out essentially the same function in all languages, so the English Wikipedia naming convention standard applies to non-English articles as well. P12k (talk) 18:14, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

This isn't a non-English article, though. It's an English article about a non-English location that is primarily rendered as "Ciomadul", and at Wikipedia:Article titles it's said that we use the most common English formulation. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:46, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

Requested move 1 April 2023

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Ciomad → Ciomadul – From what I can see, "Ciomadul" is a far more common name than "Ciomad" in English. And there is nothing in WP:Article titles that suggest that being grammatically correct in a foreign language has priority over being the more common term in English. Besides, the Romanian article is ro:Masivul Ciomatu - Puturosu and the Hungarian one hu:Csomád-hegység, neither says "Ciomad". Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:34, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

• Support per nom. I am not sure however why do you imply that Ciomadul would be gramatically incorrect. "Ciomadul" is simply "The Ciomad"; as there is one single Ciomad, it is not surprising it has become the most common form. This happens often with Romanian geographical features. Still I personally would see an attempt of adopting a grammatically incorrect title in another language as a pretty ignorant sign of disrespect, no matter what the policies say, and I'd expect it to at least be taken into consideration in a move discussion. Fortunately that's not the case here. Super Ψ Dro 21:10, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

  That's only because someone above said that it was grammatically inaccurate. I don't know anything about Romanian or Hungarian so I have to go with what other people say about them. But if it's not in fact grammatically inaccurate, then it's another argument for restoring the old name I guess. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:52, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

  The Romanian "Ciomad" and the Hungarian "Csomád" are cross-language homophones. "Ciomadul" is not grammatically inaccurate, however, it would go against the Wikipedia naming convention standard. Naming this article "Ciomadul" would be like naming the "Grand Canyon" article "The Grand Canyon" and you wouldn't do that, would you? P12k (talk) 23:41, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

• Comment: This reminds me of the Spanish and English names for Teide volcano in Tenerife. The Spanish name is 'El Teide" (word-for-word English translation would be "The Teide") but in English "Teide" or "Mount Teide" is used, not "The Teide". The Spanish Wikipedia article es:Teide has the article title as "Teide" but the article body text uses "El Teide" (except when it refers occasionally to the volcanic complex of Teide and its adjacent volcano Pico Viejo as "complejo volcánico Teide-Pico Viejo"). See also the English Wikipedia article about the German volcano Kaiserstuhl (Baden-Württemberg) - its article title omits the definite article but the article body text uses "the Kaiserstuhl". GeoWriter (talk) 17:14, 8 April 2023 (UTC)
• Support per nom. --Nagsb (talk) 08:31, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.