Talk:Hudson Volcano
Hudson Volcano 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. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so. | |||||||||||||
This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on August 14, 2024. | |||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on February 16, 2024. The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that the volcano Mount Hudson repeatedly depopulated parts of South America? | |||||||||||||
Current status: Featured article |
This article is rated FA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The following references may be useful when improving this article in the future: |
The following references may be useful when improving this article in the future: |
On 16 May 2024, it was proposed that this article be moved from Mount Hudson. The result of the discussion was moved. |
Aerosols
editFrom what I understand, sulfur dioxide is a gas and as such can not be an aerosol. If this is true, the phrase "sulfur dioxide and other aerosols" suggests the wrong thing. 21:31, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
- Not only is it a gas; I'm not sure it is particularly soluble in water, nor can it turn into sulphuric acid without a lot of laboratory work. (No that that error was made in this article) Furthermore it is unwise to speculate on the properties of any chemical affect on the ozone after a volcanic eruption until we know more about the process. (I gather an increase in the water content during the SSW (that I believe always occur with eruptions) merely adds to the scarcity of ozone at the poles in the season. Measurement was extremely suspect at that time and certainly any comparison with data until the 1983 satellite data fiasco was resolved can not be accepted.
Hudson
editWho was the Hudson for which the volcano was named? --DThomsen8 (talk) 14:45, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
External links modified (February 2018)
editHello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Mount Hudson. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060117134004/http://volcano.und.edu/vwdocs/frequent_questions/grp7/south_america/question1660.html to http://volcano.und.edu/vwdocs/frequent_questions/grp7/south_america/question1660.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
- If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
- If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:59, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
On the 1991 eruption
editI've compiled sources that can be used to write an article on the 1991 eruption[1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16][17][18][19][20][21][https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/10106049209354367 ][22][23][24][25][26][27][28][29][30][31][32][33][34], but in this article I've minimized the coverage as the article is about the volcano in general not just its historic eruptions. And the H1 eruption in the Holocene probably was far more significant than the 1991 one, anyway. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 13:50, 25 November 2023 (UTC)
- Going to ask for second opinions on this POV balance tomorrow. JoJo Eumerus mobile (main talk) 21:13, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
- Given that this article is about the volcano in general and that it has 4,000+ words of readable prose I would suggest creating a separate article for the 1991 eruption. I also think expanding the content about the 1991 eruption in this article might meet WP:UNDUE since there have been more significant eruptions at Mount Hudson earlier in the Holocene. Volcanoguy 20:53, 23 December 2023 (UTC)
- Agree with Volcanoguy. ceranthor 21:00, 23 December 2023 (UTC)
- Given that this article is about the volcano in general and that it has 4,000+ words of readable prose I would suggest creating a separate article for the 1991 eruption. I also think expanding the content about the 1991 eruption in this article might meet WP:UNDUE since there have been more significant eruptions at Mount Hudson earlier in the Holocene. Volcanoguy 20:53, 23 December 2023 (UTC)
For H1 eruption
edit"CARLOS ASCHERO; DAMIAN BOZZUTO; MARÍA TERESA CIVALERO; MARIANA DE NIGRIS; NATALIA FERNÁNDEZ; NICOLAS MAVEROFF; MARIANA SACCHI Se nos viene la noche. el volcán Hudson y su influencia en el NO de Santa Cruz: integrando perspectivas arqueológicas. Arqueología de la Patagonia: el pasado en las arenas. Lugar: Puerto Madryn; Año: 2019; p. 239 - 249" is accessible via ResearchGate. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:26, 26 November 2023 (UTC)
Outdated source on appearance
edit"Cevo C., J. (1). MANIFESTACIONES VOLCANICAS EN AYSEN (CHILE) ENTRE 1971 Y 1973. Revista Geográfica De América Central, 1(1), 51-74. Recuperado a partir de https://www.revistas.una.ac.cr/index.php/geografica/article/view/2053" may be useful to describe an outdated view on how the volcano looks. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:26, 26 November 2023 (UTC)
GA
editGA Review
editThe following discussion 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.
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
- This review is transcluded from Talk:Mount Hudson/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Bruxton (talk · contribs) 21:16, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
Review notes
edit- I am happy to review this article. I do enjoy articles on Geography. Bruxton (talk) 21:16, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
Items which have been addressed
|
---|
Leadedit
Spelling/otheredit
Imagesedit
|
Citations
edit- Earwig 8.8% only alerts to long titles.
- Geography and geomorphology - it is a difficult check for me because of the language and need to machine translate the foreign language sources. The citations I could check in this section were accurate.
- I've seen a recommendation to use this translator, as it's less likely to wank up the syntax than Google Translate. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:55, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
- Geology "The crust under the volcano is about 30 kilometres (19 mi) thick" Not finding this in the citation #41. Other sources that I spot checked are good.
Hudson volcano has developed on *30-km-thick crust
Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:40, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
- Composition and magma plumbing system citations check out
- Climate and vegetation citations check out
- Eruption history - spot checked - citations check out
- Holocene - spot checked -citations check out
- Significant eruptions and recent activity - spot checked -citations check out
- H0 eruption: 17,300-17,440 BP - spot checked - citations check out
- H1 eruption: 7750 BP - spot checked - citations check out
- Impact on Tierra del Fuego - spot checked - citations check out
- H2 eruption: 4200 BP Is the first sentence is WP:OVERCITEed? Also should we follow MOS:SPELL09? If so the number 6 should be "six"? I have not checked the rest of the article for 0-9 numbers which are not spelled.
- I don't remember why all these citations, but the information in the sentence comes from different sources. I've spelled out six there. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:40, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
- H3 eruption: 1991 AD - spot checked - citations check out
- Intercontinental spread of ash - spot checked - citations check out
- Other historical activity - spot checked - citations check out
- Hazards - spot checked - citations check out
Comments
edit- @Jo-Jo Eumerus:, I am sure the article took an enormous amount of time. It is comprehensive and I have not been able to access certain references but I can AGF. You have brought it from this 678 word article to a 4445 word article. You have an impressive body of work. I think we can wrap this up when you have a look at my final concerns. Bruxton (talk) 01:09, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
Chart
editRate | Attribute | Review Comment |
---|---|---|
1. Well-written: | ||
1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct. | Yes | |
1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation. | Yes | |
2. Verifiable with no original research: | ||
2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline. | Yes | |
2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose). | Yes | |
2c. it contains no original research. | Yes | |
2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism. | Yes | |
3. Broad in its coverage: | ||
3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic. | Yes | |
3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style). | Yes | |
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each. | Yes | |
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. | Yes | |
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio: | ||
6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content. | Yes | |
6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions. | Yes | |
7. Overall assessment. |
Did you know nomination
edit- The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was: promoted by Lightburst talk 04:19, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
- ... that Mount Hudson volcano repeatedly depopulated parts of South America?
- Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Run (meme)
- Comment: Note that this should be attributed to my main account, Jo-Jo Eumerus
Improved to Good Article status by Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk). Nominated by JoJo Eumerus mobile (talk) at 07:26, 6 February 2024 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/Mount Hudson; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.
- This is ready for DYK. The article is WORTHY, and the fact itself fills the purposes outlined in WP:DYK. As such in my opinion this would be a fine selection for DYK. -Samoht27 22:16, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
- Added a QPQ. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:19, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
Requested move 16 May 2024
edit- 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.
The result of the move request was: moved. to Hudson Volcano. (closed by non-admin page mover) Bensci54 (talk) 16:04, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
Mount Hudson → ? – As noted in the featured article candidacy, "Mount Hudson" doesn't appear to be the most common name for the volcano. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:07, 16 May 2024 (UTC)— Relisting. >>> Extorc.talk 09:36, 23 May 2024 (UTC) — Relisting. Polyamorph (talk) 10:38, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
- Well, you were the person who stated that in the FAC. There was certainly no agreement about it. However, I agree that User:Hog Farm indicated that the question of whether or not to move it should be resolved after the close of the FAC, so why don't you present your reasons why you think it ought to be moved? For example, what do the most authoritative sources say? -- Ssilvers (talk) 03:01, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
- Global Volcanism Program has "Cerro Hudson". Google Scholar for Cerro Hudson, Mount Hudson and Mt Hudson but with lots of false positives. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 12:12, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
- Based on what I looked over during the FAC, either Hudson Volcano or Cerro Hudson seem preferable to the present title; "Mount Hudson" has much less usage than those two, even in the sources cited in the article. Hog Farm Talk 16:44, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
- Global Volcanism Program has "Cerro Hudson". Google Scholar for Cerro Hudson, Mount Hudson and Mt Hudson but with lots of false positives. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 12:12, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
- Relisting comment: There appears to be agreement for a move, but to what title? Polyamorph (talk) 10:38, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
- This has to go somewhere, Hudson Volcano seems to be somewhat more prevalent based on my rudimentary searches. Hog Farm Talk 13:04, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
Pronunciation
editHow is it pronounced? Like the river in New York? Marnanel (talk) 10:34, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
- No idea, sorry. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:21, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
Preprints
editThis source may be useful if it gets published.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 11:58, 18 November 2024 (UTC)