- 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 Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:18, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
Ciomadul
edit- ... that Ciomadul volcano in Romania had sub-Plinian eruptions less than 50,000 years ago and is still potentially active?
- Reviewed: Franziska Romana Koch
Moved to mainspace by Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk). Self-nominated at 13:55, 20 December 2016 (UTC).
Article is new and long enough. The hook is referenced. No copyright or neutrality issue detected. QPQ is done. Good to go. --KAVEBEAR (talk) 07:16, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
@Jo-Jo Eumerus: I came to promote this but could not find mention of all the aspects of the hook. I see that various possible dates are mentioned for the most recent eruption, and they are all more recent than 50,000 years ago, so that part is OK, but the article does not seem to mention that this was a sub-Plinian eruption (spelt subplinian in some parts of the article). Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:12, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
- Um, Cwmhiraeth, what is "this" eruption? The hook does not refer to specific eruptions as the chronology of Ciomadul's activity is sort of confusing. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 10:38, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
- @Jo-Jo Eumerus: The eruptions in the last 50,000 years, then. I don't see the word "subplinian" associated with them. If the word were not in the hook, it would not be a problem. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:07, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
- @Cwmhiraeth: Now it has. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:11, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
- Would you be happy with ALT1? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:21, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
- @Cwmhiraeth: Now it has. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:11, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
- @Jo-Jo Eumerus: The eruptions in the last 50,000 years, then. I don't see the word "subplinian" associated with them. If the word were not in the hook, it would not be a problem. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:07, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
- Um, Cwmhiraeth, what is "this" eruption? The hook does not refer to specific eruptions as the chronology of Ciomadul's activity is sort of confusing. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 10:38, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
Wary of that. I think it's important that Ciomadul doesn't just do small steam explosions, but also large eruptions with with tall columns, ash fall into neighbouring countries and deadly pyroclastic flows in the area around the volcano. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 10:14, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
- Sorry to be a pain, but the article states "Ciomadul has been active for over half a million years.[4] Other estimates indicate that activity did not start before 250,000 years ago." and "The oldest activity occurred between 1,000,000 and 750,000 years ago". These views seem to contradict each other. It seems as if there are varying views and that you have arbitrarily chosen one as being accurate. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:36, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
- @Cwmhiraeth: I think I got it. These disagreements between dating results are a nuisance to write about. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 10:23, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
- Cwmhiraeth. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:33, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
- @Cwmhiraeth: I think I got it. These disagreements between dating results are a nuisance to write about. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 10:23, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
Please could somebody else look at this, because I am not happy to approve it. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:53, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
- OK, I'll take a look at it. On a preliminary scan the article looks fine. I'll give a more thorough look at it when I have time (which is most likely tomorrow). Ashorocetus (talk | contribs) 21:34, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
- Sorry to be a pain, but the article states "Ciomadul has been active for over half a million years.[4] Other estimates indicate that activity did not start before 250,000 years ago." and "The oldest activity occurred between 1,000,000 and 750,000 years ago". These views seem to contradict each other. It seems as if there are varying views and that you have arbitrarily chosen one as being accurate. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:36, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
- Looking pretty good. To be honest I find the article somewhat difficult to follow, but it does meet the criteria. It is long enough, new enough, well-cited. ALT1 is interesting, cited, and short enough. ALT0 also looks good, but I suspect that most readers won't have any idea what sub-Plinian means, so it might not be as hook-y as ALT1. QPQ is complete. Ashorocetus (talk | contribs) 01:47, 24 February 2017 (UTC)