Talk:Lava balloon/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: RockMagnetist (talk · contribs) 17:48, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I am planning to review this article. RockMagnetist(talk) 17:48, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
One style issue is that there are several inline citations that are not after punctuation per WP:REFPUNCT. Also, it would probably be better to cite some of the short research articles like Gaspar et al. as a whole rather than by page number, as there is a lot of citation clutter.
See, to me it sounded like REFPUNCT (aside from not being policy) allows for inline citations inside a sentence even when there is no punctuation, if a sentence is sourced to separate sources. Point taken on clutter, though - is the Gaspar source the only problematic one? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:30, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Of course, none of the MOS is policy. Strictly speaking REFPUNCT is not a part of the MOS that you're required to pass. But the clutter does make it less readable. Sorry about the reflist format, by the way - I didn't notice you'd done it that way.

As for whether there are more problematic ones, I think you should try to avoid citing adjacent pages in the same sentence, as in the last sentence in Appearance. Kelly et al. could be grouped into pages 2-5 and page 16 (converted to actual page numbers, of course). I also see that Ref. 27 (Casas et al. 2018, p. 138) is missing a digit in the page number. RockMagnetist(talk) 21:22, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Sure? To me the digit looks correct there. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 07:20, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I was confusing it with Pachecho et al. RockMagnetist(talk) 16:09, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I've cut back on some of the closely spaced references. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:37, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):
I unchecked the reliable sources box because a lot of page numbers are clearly incorrect - they seem to be relative page numbers inside the article instead of the actual page numbers in the publication. I fixed the ones for Wright et al., but the numbers for Gaspar et al., Kelly et al. (formerly Marani et al.), and Somoza et al. are still incorrect. RockMagnetist(talk) 19:07, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I did access the Gaspar and Kelly sources via ResearchGate copies and thus used that copy's page numbering scheme; noted through the "via" parameter. The Somoza source I asked for at WP:RX, perhaps during the sending process the original page numbers were changed. I am guessing you have direct source access? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:30, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, I don't have direct access right now, although I hope that's temporary. I do wonder if your sources have the same format as the originals, so the page numbers line up. #::::RockMagnetist(talk) 21:15, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I combined the citations with problematic page numbers. Note that it's o.k. to use a single citation for a whole paragraph if that is the source for all the content. RockMagnetist(talk) 18:36, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.:
It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Overall:
Pass/Fail:

General comments on readability

I have some overall concerns about the quality of writing. The first is that it reads like a technical article. Lots of jargon like scoria, clast, and felsic are used without explanation.

The article is organized almost exclusively around individual events, resulting in a lot of redundancy. For example, in Observations there are multiple statements about balloons being collected and analyzed; it would be better, as in the White et al. article, to make a general statement that balloons have not been observed erupting but have been collected on the surface and the sea floor. In Appearance, there is a recitation of a series of very similar size measurements.

I think it would help to begin with a description of the general properties of lava balloons. The list of places where they occur should be preceded with a general statement along the lines of your sentence from Genesis: "Lava balloons are usually observed when lava flows enter the sea, less commonly during submarine eruptions such as at Terceira." It might be better to combine Occurrence with Observations. RockMagnetist(talk) 22:07, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'll see to get this actioned this afternoon and evening. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 07:20, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I've put in some explanations for jargon. In terms of sections, I've shifted the "Appearance" section up and condensed its size measurements, although that plus the "balloons have been collected" statement make me wonder if sources can be used in this way, i.e if we can make a general statement on their size and sampling on the basis of individual observations. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:37, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging RockMagnetist for replies to some fixes implemented here. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 13:33, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have simply removed most of the "balloons have been collected" statements because it's pretty obvious that you have to collect them before you can describe their interiors. RockMagnetist(talk) 18:42, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Adding footnotes for jargon doesn't really address the jargon issue; given that there are wikilinks to the terms, they don't really add anything. What I really want is more context to make their significance clear. However, I think I'd better just discuss particular statements below. RockMagnetist(talk) 19:19, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the thing with jargon is that non-jargon language often oversimplifies or is overly complicated. That and if memory serves, not all Wikipedia readers are online when they read articles - many of them download things for future reading and so - so a link is not necessarily enough. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:37, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Specific lines

I have been doing some rearranging and copy editing to eliminate redundancy. I have some questions about particular lines:

"The inner part of the crust ... larger inward." This is a very detailed description. Is it indeed typical of lava balloons? RockMagnetist(talk) 18:42, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Difficult to tell since few sources discuss the details of how lava ballons look in a comprehensive manner. I think that sentence should specify "at Terceira" since these are the best studied ones. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:37, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Genesis, first paragraph. I don't know what to make of the information here. What is the significance of the different types of magma? What kinds of eruption are they associated with? If the basic, alkalik magma is not basalt, what is it? RockMagnetist(talk) 19:23, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The significance is that pumice is a well known floating rock but is only produced by felsic eruptions. Lava balloons are much rarer. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:37, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, and what about the distinction between basalt and alkalik magma? RockMagnetist (DCO visiting scholar) (talk) 22:59, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the eruptions discussed have involved alkalic magmas such as basalt. The "distinction" is not really important here, what matters is that lava balloons have been observed mainly at basaltic volcanoes. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 07:18, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
O.k. You need to make that clear in the article. I had the opposite impression from what you wrote. RockMagnetist (DCO visiting scholar) (talk) 16:35, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Rewrote that, but I am not entirely sure on the wording... Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 17:31, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I still found it hard to understand, so I attempted my own wording. See what you think. RockMagnetist(talk) 17:53, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Impact: Can you please add an explanation of what evolved magma is? RockMagnetist(talk) 18:08, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think I need to wait for my last request to be fulfilled. I am passing this article. Congratulations! RockMagnetist(talk) 18:55, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]