Talk:Eldgjá

Eldgjá has been listed as one of the Geography and places good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Review: August 20, 2022. (Reviewed version).

This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Volcanoes Mid‑importance

	Volcanoes portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Volcanoes, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of volcanoes, volcanology, igneous petrology, and related subjects on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.VolcanoesWikipedia:WikiProject VolcanoesTemplate:WikiProject VolcanoesWikiProject Volcanoes articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Mountains Low‑importance

	Mountains portal This article is part of WikiProject Mountains, a project to systematically present information on mountains. If you would like to participate, you can choose to edit the article attached to this page (see Contributing FAQ for more information), or visit the project page where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.MountainsWikipedia:WikiProject MountainsTemplate:WikiProject MountainsMountain articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Iceland Mid‑importance

	Iceland portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Iceland, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Iceland on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IcelandWikipedia:WikiProject IcelandTemplate:WikiProject IcelandIceland articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Geography Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Geography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of geography on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.GeographyWikipedia:WikiProject GeographyTemplate:WikiProject Geographygeography articles

Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

WikiProject Geography To-do list:

Here are some tasks awaiting attention:

Article requests : See Requested articles/Social sciences/Geography, cities, regions and named places and Missing articles about Locations
Assess : Tag related article talk pages with {{WikiProject Geography}}. To help assess the quality and importance of geography articles, please see: Unassessed geography articles and Unknown-importance geography articles.
Cleanup : See Geography articles needing attention
Deletion sorting : Listed at Geographic related deletion discussions
Geographical coordinates : See Articles missing geocoordinate data by country
Infobox : See Geography articles needing infoboxes
Map : See Wikipedia requested maps
Notability : See Geography articles with topics of unclear notability
Photo : See Wikipedia requested photographs of places
Stubs : See Geography stubs

The following references may be useful when improving this article in the future:

Google Scholar

Coordinate error

{{geodata-check}} The coordinates need the following fixes: According to the Global Volcanism program, the coordinates are 63.88°N 18.77°W. This makes more sense because the Ófærufoss waterfall, which is in Eldgja, is closer. 96.248.174.146 (talk) 22:11, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

According to this the fissure system is pretty extensive, stretching (intermittently) basically all the way from Vatnajökull to Mýrdalsjökull, so both sets of coordinates are more or less correct (for different parts of the system). Nevertheless, I've changed the coordinates to be nearer the middle of the feature and to be close to Ófærufoss, which, as you say, is a point of reference mentioned in the article. (The new location also has the advantage of being clearly a canyon when you zoom in on it.) Deor (talk) 17:19, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Eldgjá. 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/20040603055052/http://volcano.und.nodak.edu/vwdocs/volc_images/europe_west_asia/eldgja.html to http://volcano.und.nodak.edu/vwdocs/volc_images/europe_west_asia/eldgja.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) 22:05, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

Passed. —Ganesha811 (talk) 21:56, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The 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.

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

Reviewer: Ganesha811 (talk · contribs) 16:30, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I'll be reviewing this article, using the template below. Looking forward to reading it! —Ganesha811 (talk) 16:30, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Jo-Jo Eumerus: I've completed the first run-through of the GA review, the only thing that really needs fixing is some image issues. You could also double-check for awkward phrasing and grammar issues in case I missed anything. We're close! —Ganesha811 (talk) 14:28, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This article now meets the GA standard! Congrats to you and anyone else who worked on it. —Ganesha811 (talk) 21:53, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	As is my usual practice, I'll make any small tweaks myself to save us both time. If there are any major issues I'll mention them here, and if you object to any of my changes, just let me know and we can discuss. There were some grammatical issues, a few problems of jargon, duplicate links, and some awkward phrasing, but I think I've fixed the bulk of the issues, which were overall not too severe. It's not 100% perfect now but it meets the GA standard. Pass. Most of your reversions are fine, but I think you should rework the paragraph about Dating. I don't understand what the phrase "ulterior confusion" means in context. The phrase "which may have produced little sulfate aerosols far less than Eldgja" is grammatically incorrect - perhaps splitting up the sentence would help. Yeah, writing that sentence was hard. There are two problems with the dating of the Eldgja eruption: a) the date is uncertain, period, b) the coincidence with the Paektusan eruption means that you sometimes need to separate the two. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 20:39, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply] In addition to your changes, I've made some further tweaks and I think it's now in a pretty good state. Pass on prose. —Ganesha811 (talk) 21:53, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply] Also, CE and AD are used interchangeably - switch them so we stick to one or the other for this article per WP:MoS. Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 20:39, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply] What is the difference between "alternating" and "an alternation of"? "An alternation of" is an awkward phrase and not common in English. Rewritten. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 20:39, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	Pass, no issues.
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.	Pass, no issues.
	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).	Pass. Almost exclusively well-regarded academic sources from credible authors. The only one I might have a qualm about is White & Skilling (newsletter), but given the information it is used to support and the specifics of the newsletter, no actual problem.
	2c. it contains no original research.	No OR detected, pass.
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.	Nothing found by Earwig or manual spot-check. Pass.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	Pass, nothing else major found.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	Pass, no major areas of overdetail. A few superfluous things can be trimmed out in prose review.
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	Pass, no issues of neutrality found.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	Pass, no edit wars or unresolved major issues from talk. Pass.
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.	Pass, no issues.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	The caption on the last image (File:Eruption of Eyjafjallajökull Volcano, Iceland 2010-04-04 lrg.jpg) is definitely too long and needs better integration with the material of the article. The caption should refer to Eldgja in some way, not focus on Eyjafjallajökull exclusively. Frankly, that entire image isn't well-suited - you can barely see the eruption to begin with. I've pulled it. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:07, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply] File:Eldgjá Volcanic Canyon Iceland (176657459).jpeg is perhaps a little more interesting than File:Eldgja.jpg. I suggest switching their location so that the aerial/drone image is in the lead/infobox. However, being taken from above it gives less of a 3D perspective. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:07, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply] That's fine - pass on images.
	7. Overall assessment.

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.

Apologies

Hope geological map is helpful. Slightly risky adding it to already GA article as the initial addition not up to GA standard but hopefully is now. ChaseKiwi (talk) 21:16, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't seem like the mouseover works yet. Actually, I am not sure where in the image Eldgja actually is. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:01, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mouseover should work but you made a good point only identified when I highlighted Eldgjá fissure swarm and found it was not extending towards Vatnajökull - this is a potential problem of assembling data from multiple sources, I had identified that some fissures assigned to Eldgjá were outside a historic 2000 mapping that other authors had corrected and in doing the correction closed a polygon prematurely - corrected now thanks. ChaseKiwi (talk) 07:58, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think without labelling that map isn't very useful. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:03, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The map is labelled and referenced but not intuitive that how to do this as you have to show it in full screen (window). Thus the Click on picture to enable mouse over instruction. You get a full window map then with mouse over enabled. Works in all current browsers and mobile phones (with a finger tap). This is to minimise server load, the use of image thumbnails (which is generally best practice) and some technical limitations for security reasons. While there is a way to annotate plain OSM maps displayed as images (not thumbnails) in the bulk of an article, with very simple objects for immediate mouseover, this does not meet mapping need in this case due to complex polygons or lines (raw geoJSON) required in this geological mapping. There has been active technical debate since the graph module was disabled a year ago amongst those interested in a good visual interactive web experience and the Senior Director of Product at WMF only updated us last week on where WMF is going to have to go. See phabricator:T334940

The issue that some simpler images and maps used on wikipedia will have immediate mouseover and others will need a click will not likely be solved ever this communication told us. See Template:OSM Location map/Return to service for how with CSS it took nearly a year to re-write template code to enable immediate mouseover on simple annotated maps and get over 5000 pages on en:wikipedia back in action as intended. ChaseKiwi (talk) 09:30, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]