Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/1257 Samalas eruption/archive1

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 13 May 2019 [1].

---

1257 Samalas eruption

Nominator(s): Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 07:36, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

This article is about a large, recently discovered volcanic eruption in Indonesia that took place in 1257. Actually, the existence of this eruption was known since the 1980s-1990s when traces of a large volcanic event - one of the largest in the last 10,000 years - were discovered in ice cores of Greenland and Antarctica but only in 2013 did a group of researchers specifically link it to the Rinjani volcano, thanks to historical records which also give the name Samalas. This eruption is considered to be responsible both for short term climate change and also potentially for the onset of the Little Ice Age - the latter point especially has gained it a lot of attention in the research community and the popular press. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 07:36, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Two postscripts:

• While not part of the FAC proper, there is an extensive discussion on the talk page about sources and content that reviewers might be interested in.
• I realize that we don't like weasel words, but there ain't a clear cut scientific consensus that 1257 Samalas eruption caused the Little Ice Age. Yes, the idea has strong support in the sources I've seen but it's not (yet) as widely agreed upon as, say, "present-day global warming is man-made". Hence why I formulated it as a "it is possible" statement.

Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 07:36, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

SupportComments from Jim

Usual high standard, a few quibbles Jimfbleak - talk to me? 11:49, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

• I’m not keen on red links in the lead. Not a big deal, but perhaps a one-sentence stub for these implicitly notable topics would be worthwhile?

Maybe, but I am not too keen of microstubs especially since it's not technically a FAC requirement as far as I know. Anyone? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 17:46, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

• I don’t think we link countries now, especially as you haven’t been consistent on this; looks a bit Eurocentric as it is.

Took out the links except for the Indonesia link as the volcano is there. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 17:46, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

• occurred at Mount Samalas thanks to historical records — comma after Samalas

Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 17:46, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

• Java Island is odd, just Java I think

Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 17:46, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

• before 12,000 BP.— “earlier than “ might be better to avoid the implicit repay of “before”

I dunno, "earlier than" sounds a little odd in this context. As if it emphasized the "earlier" aspect too much. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 17:46, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

• link topography

Linked. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 17:46, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

• The eruption column reached a height of 39–40 kilometres (24–25 mi) during the first stage (P1),[27] and of 43–38 kilometres (27–24 mi)— I assume there’s a reason why you have reversed the normal order in the second part, but if so it’s not clear to this reader

Nah, that was unneeded. Ordered again. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 17:46, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

• Franck Lavigne— who he? Nationality and profession would help since there’s no article linked

Can't find an explanation on a brief search; I'll see later today. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 17:46, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

• Samalas and climate—I'd try to avoid having part of the article title in the heading

Retitled. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 17:46, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

• chlorine monoxide and bromine monoxide.— Your source doesn’t mention the oxides, which I would have thought to have only a transient presence anyway

It does mention them in the form of their formulas - ClO and BrO. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 17:46, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

You are right, but those aren't the formulas of the monoxides which are Cl2O and Br2O, what the source has is unstable free radicals ClO and BrO, so you should use those instead Jimfbleak - talk to me? 19:34, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

My bad, you are correct. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 19:38, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

• "violets" should surely link to Viola (plant)? The others don't make sense

Maybe, but the source does not specify. You sure it can be only this one? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 17:46, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

It's actually most likely to be Viola arvensis, so the genus is actually playing safe to my mind. In my nature reserve and bird articles I'm often faced with a similar situation, but there is usually an obvious species or genus Jimfbleak - talk to me? 19:34, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

• atlantic meridional overturning circulation—cap Atlantic

Capped. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 17:46, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

• Mirror of the East—perhaps give Japanese name too?

Removed the English one as it doesn't seem to be that important. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 17:46, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

@Jimfbleak: Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 17:46, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

@Jimfbleak: Addressed the other two pending problems. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:26, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Looking again, the chlorine query was my misreading, and I think the Lavigne/Viola queries I can leave with you, so changed to support above Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:32, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Comments from Stevey7788

• "CLIMATIC AND DEMOGRAPHIC CONSEQUENCES OF THE MASSIVE VOLCANIC ERUPTION OF 1258" is in all caps. Change to lowercase and capitalize only as needed.
• "All houses were destroyed and swept away, floating on the sea, and many people died. — Javanese text, [64]" Which Javanese text? Please be more specific.
• A bit too many red links. Consider fixing those, although I am aware that Wikipedia has a notable dearth of content on Indonesian manuscripts and historical kingdoms.
• Overall, impressive and well cited. Good article but not quite yet a featured article yet due to various little things here and there. Some more tweaking and you might have a featured article.

— Stevey7788 (talk) 03:57, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

@Stevey7788:Thanks for the comments. I did fix the caps issue and also the "Javanese text" bit. I cannot really fix many of the redlinks mostly owing to lack of information; sources on some of these topics are often sparse and/or in Bahasa Indonesia. I take that even so there are more things to tweak? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 06:39, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

@Jo-Jo Eumerus: Do you read Bahasa Indonesia? I can help out if you need any assistance. Also, try digging up some old resources from collections in Leiden and Canberra if you can. Jakarta does have some things, but unfortunately most of the good Indonesian stuff is actually abroad. I've gone book hunting in Indonesia before, which is really frustrating because it's just not a very bibliophilic society. — Stevey7788 (talk) 07:52, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

@Stevey7788: Unfortunately, no. I cannot read Bahasa Indonesia and are nowhere close to Canberra or Leiden for my free time. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:55, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Sources review

• No spotchecks carried out
• All links to sources working satisfactorily
• A few minor presentational points:

• Ref 64: pp range requires ndash not hyphen
• Retrieval dates should be formatted consistently – compare refs 2 and 63 with others
• Alloway et al is listed out of alphabetical sequence.

The sources appear to be of the appropriate high standards of quality and reliability, and except for the minor issues noted above are consistently presented. Brianboulton (talk) 12:25, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

@Brianboulton: Seems like I got all these done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 17:19, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Support per my extensive peer review comments. ceranthor 12:45, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Provisional support from Iridescent

The usual disclaimer that I haven't checked any sources or images. As always, I've not read any other FAC comments to come at it with fresh eyes, so there may be duplication of other people's points. This is the version on which I'm commenting.

General gripe

• There's an awful lot of repetition of "likewise".

Cut a couple of mentions, although I am not sure if "too too" is good writing. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:41, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

Lead

• It will make the "brilliant prose" people choke on their cornflakes, but I'd explicitly start this with the full-format year in the first sentence. (Assuming you want to avoid "The 1257 Samalas eruption was a major eruption of the Samalas volcano in 1257 CE", something like The Samalas volcano erupted in 1257 CE" or similar would work.) Usually it's immediately obvious that we're talking about a date, but in this instance readers—particularly the nonspecialist readers who'll see it if it's at TFA, and are familiar with Wikipedia's over-reliance on technical jargon and never saying "oak tree" when we can say "Quercus robur"—might well assume that "1257 Samalas" is the formal name of the volcano in the International Volcano Directory in the same way that 1257 Móra is the formal name of the Móra asteroid. Because Indonesia is an Islamic country, even people who do immediately recognize "1257" as a year won't necessarily know which calendar is being used.

Took a bit of a rewrite, but done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:41, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

• The eruption had a probable Volcanic Explosivity Index of 7 maybe ought to have an explanatory footnote (it would be too intrusive to put it in parentheses in the lead), explaining that 7 is a Really Big Deal. People are so used to decimal scales (1-10 or 1-100) that non-specialist readers are going to interpret this as "70% as powerful as a really big volcano". This is a hyper-trivial point and certainly not something I'd oppose over.

Added a footnote to explain this. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:41, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

• This isn't your fault, but a redlinked city name is jarring, particularly in the lead, and will probably prompt an endless stream of good-faith readers to ask "is this what you meant?" or even accuse you of hoaxing. Much as I hate substubs, it would probably make sense to bluelink Pamatan, even if it's just a one-liner that says "Pamatan was a city on Lombok that was destroyed in the 1257 Samalas eruption". Again not something which is this article's fault so not something I'd support/oppose over.

Penned up a microstub. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:41, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

• It is possible that the eruption helped trigger the Little Ice Age, a centuries-long cold period during the last thousand years. If it happened in 1257, then by definition it could have triggered something over the last 760 years at most.

That's true, but not all of the "last thousand years" is part of the Little Ice Age. Does this need clarification? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:41, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

Geology

• This could probably do with a map to give readers at least a fighting chance of knowing where it is. The map in the lead pinpoints the volcano within Lombok, but I'm sure I'm not alone in not having the slightest idea where Lombok is.

File:Lombok Locator.svg seems like it might work, but I'll ask Gunkarta about the basemap - I've seen problems in the past at FAC with maps that didn't specify the source of topographical information. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:41, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

Seems like it is derived from an unproblematic source, so added it to the article. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:23, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

• For Samalas (also known as Rinjani Tua), wrap "Rinjani Tua" in the appropriate {{lang}} template, otherwise that's going to confuse screen readers.

Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:41, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

• Before the eruption, Mount Samalas may have been as tall as 4,200 ± 100 metres—how tall is it now? Bear in mind that most readers won't know the mechanism of vulcanism, and won't know whether the force of the eruption destroyed the mountain and reduced its height, or whether all that additional lava squirting out and solidifying caused it to rise. (It's mentioned at the very end that the present height is 2800m, but a long way afterwards.)

Oy, this is a hard one - Samalas is a twin mountain with Rinjani, and its current maximum height currently is not specified but certainly less than Rinjani's. Expanded it a bit; is it clearer now? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:41, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

• Volcanic rocks ejected by the eruption covered Bali and Lombok—Lombok maybe, but Bali was clearly not covered by rock in 1257. Our Bali Kingdom article is fairly crappy but the relevant section doesn't even mention the eruption, so it presumably isn't considered that big a deal by historians of Bali.

Good question. As noted farther down in the Indonesia section and also (implicitly) in the Bali Kingdom article itself, the historical record is fairly poor for that time of Bali, so I suspect it's simply lack of information rather than a conscious choice by historians. The source for this claim here is definitive that volcanic rocks covered all of Bali. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:41, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

• Eruptions of comparable intensity include… is followed by a long list, all but one of which are dated.

Added date. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:41, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

• The eruption that formed the caldera was first recognized in 2003—I don't understand this. Did people not realize prior to 2003 that the big thing which had erupted 15 times since 1847 was a volcano?

They did, but not the particular eruption that formed the caldera. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:41, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

Research history

• The major volcanic event in 1257–1258 was first identified from data in ice cores and from medieval records in the northern hemisphere; I get what you're trying to say here, but surely the major volcanic event was first identified by the people of Indonesia in 1257?

Most likely yes, but it only came to wider knowledge when scientists in the 20-21st century first found traces of the eruption in ice cores, and later linked it back to the Samalas event. I am also not entirely sure about when Babad Lombok was written, it's possible it happened some years after the fact. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:02, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

• On a related note, 13th-century Bali was thoroughly interconnected with other Asian cultures. Do any contemporary Chinese, Indian or Islamic sources mention the eruption or its effects?

I confess that this is a language barrier too far for me but I suspect that no historical sources on the eruption exist or are known yet - other than the climate aftermath mentioned in the Northeast Asia section and of course Babad Lombok. None of the English language sources discuss any references to the event in Chinese, Indian and Islamic sources and I suspect it's not simply a language barrier issue or sloppy science - English-language sources about Huaynaputina's 1600 eruption 3-4 centuries later definitively reference Chinese sources about the aftermath of that event, so if there were obvious references to the Samalas one there I'd expect the sources to mention that at least offhand. Could be that we find evidence in the near future, just like Babad Lombok was known already before but linked to the 1257 event only in 2013. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:02, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

• …with the global spread indicating a tropical volcano as the cause; at first a source in a volcano near Greenland had been considered; this seems a bit of a non-sequitur.

What it's trying to say is that at first it was proposed that a volcano close to Greenland was the source; then that was discarded in favour of a tropical event. Would it work better in a chronological order? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:02, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

Climate effects

• How did the effects of this compare to Krakatoa, which is realistically going to be the only Indonesian volcanic eruption most readers have heard of?

Added a bit about this. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:26, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

• Another effect of the eruption-induced climate change may have been a brief decrease of atmospheric carbon dioxide—with the disclaimer that I know nothing about climatology, this seems counter-intuitive to me. Surely an event causing mass plant die-back is going to increase the CO2 level?

Added a sentence to explain this one. There are complicated oceanic and biological responses to volcanic eruptions that seem to end up with a drop of Co2 concentrations. That sentence is perhaps too long but I dunno how to split it up wisely. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:26, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

• The Samalas eruption, together with another eruption in the 14th century, set off a growth of ice caps and sea ice—where was the other eruption in the 14th century, and do we actually know that the Samalas eruption was the cause rather than just a contributing factor? The view of people like William Ruddiman that climatic variations are primarily the result of fluctuations in human activity may be a minority view but AFAIK hasn't been discredited yet. The remainder of this paragraph is full of "may have" and "coincides with", but this first sentence states it as undisputed fact without qualification.

I've qualified the statement as that source was the only one to make the claim without qualification and corrected it a bit as well as it seems like I misread the source as saying "eruption" rather than "cooling" originally. As an aside, I don't know this Ruddiman but a human cause for the coldest parts of the Little Ice Age has certainly been advanced, but I can't say whether it's a widespread view - the climate-historiography of the LIA has certainly changed over the 20th-21st century. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:39, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

• A sea level drop in Israel of about half a metre needs to be more specific as to what's actually meant. Israel was founded in 1947 and obviously didn't exist at the time, so where are we talking about? Plus, by "sea level" are we talking about the Mediterranean coast—in which case, how could the sea level only drop at the Israel end and not affect the rest of the Med, since the sea level dropping by 50cm in Marseille or Constantinople would certainly have been noticed—or just the usual fluctuations in the Sea of Galilee and Dead Sea?

The Crusader states per the meta-source; I've added that information. As for why not "mediterranean coast" - sea level changes are not necessarily similar across even limited areas as oceans are not communicating vessels and things like wind changes can push the sea in one direction only. Also, maybe I have less faith in chronists than you, but the discovery that many significant volcanic events at Etna happened in historical times but are unrecorded in contemporary history makes me a little wary on relying on historical sources to establish that something did not happen. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:39, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

• little evidence that tree growth was affected in the Western United States, where the eruption may have interrupted a prolonged drought period—surely a prolonged drought period by definition would have affected tree growth? Plus the same grumble regarding "United States" as per "Israel" above, given that the US wouldn't exist for another five centuries.

Rewrote this a bit. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:39, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

Social and historical consequences

• Very large volcanic eruptions can cause destruction close to the volcano will earn you an entry at Wikipedia:Principle of Some Astonishment, but probably ought to be removed unless you want EEng making sarcastic comments.

Yanked it. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 21:05, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

• I question first well documented food crisis in England; there are numerous contemporary records of the famines in the wake of the Conquest, in particular the Harrying of the North.

The source does not seem to be aware of any pre-1200 famine so while the author's credentials seem good enough I am guessing they didn't research far enough back in time; I'll remove this for the moment. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 21:05, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

• The resulting famine was severe enough that grain was imported from Germany and Holland—what's unusual about this?

The source and meta-source do seem to consider it a big deal that food was imported. I am not that familiar with medieval famine management to know whether that would be unusual or not. AFAIK in the Bengal famine and the Great Irish famine centuries later in much more interconnected worlds part of the blame has been laid to the lack of/reduction of food imports/continuation of food exports, so I would not necessarily assume that shipping food over is a normal response to medieval famines. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 21:05, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

• The effects of the eruption may also have hastened the decline of the Mongol Empire—I don't get this at all. The decades after 1257 were the reign of Kublai Khan and the high-point of Mongol expansion.

Division of the Mongol Empire does hint that in the years subsequent to that some wheels did begin to fall off. The source itself hedges quite a bit, they think that the volcano could have hastened the decline that happened after the partitions. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 21:05, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

These are almost all minor nitpicks. Provisional support pending clarification of "A sea level drop in Israel of about half a metre", which is the only thing I'd consider an actual issue rather than a "personally I think this could be clearer". ‑ Iridescent 17:43, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

• Very large volcanic eruptions can cause destruction close to the volcano – I'm torn between WP:ASTONISHME and WP:BLUE on this one. Hard as it may be to believe, that's not the worst that's wrong with that particular sentence, which I present here in its magnificent stumbling entirety:

Very large volcanic eruptions can cause destruction close to the volcano and, through their effects on climate, significant human hardship, including famine, away from the volcano although the social effects are often reduced by the resilience of humans.

EEng 18:47, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

Answered a couple of points. I'll get to the others tomorrow as I am almost falling asleep but I rewrote that sentence EEng flagged. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:28, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

OK, got most of them now and commented on other issues. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 21:05, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

Forgot to ping: @Iridescent and EEng:. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:32, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

Support by Gog the Mild

• I have made some minor copy edits which you will want to check.
• "Volcanic Explosivity Index". Why the upper case initial letters? I note that the article is inconsistent in this usage.

Standardized as all uppercase as it's a proper name. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:27, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

• "Ash from the eruption fell as far away as Java" It would be helpful to indicate the maximum distance at which ashfall has been recorded, as well as, or even instead of, that this was Java.

That would be difficult as ash fall exponentially thins with distance and at some point is no longer relevant; but there are some distances mentioned in the "eruption" section including a commented out section Even farther away, an ash layer in Lake Malawi in Africa has been linked to the Samalas eruption. (the commenting-out is due to the source saying in Lake Malawi sediments (1°S, 34.5°E), as a thickash layer of age within dating uncertainties (100 yr)of 1258 A.D. (T. C. Johnson 2006, personal commu-nication).. I've added a thing. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:27, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

• "These pumices fell as far away as Sumbawa in the east", Which is how far?

Specified, but not sure about the wording. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:27, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

• "The emplacement of these pumices was followed". "Emplacement" reads oddly to me; is there a better word or phrase?

Maybe "deposition" but that is already used several times. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:27, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

• "flowing around obstacles such as older volcanoes as they flowed across the island incinerating the island's vegetation" flowing and flowed within 10 words; island twice in 4 words, and three times in the sentence. Would it be possible to rephrase to cut the repetition?

I've rephrased some things here. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:27, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

• "The duration of the P1 and P3 phases is not known individually, but the two phases combined (not including P2) lasted between 12 and 15 hours." That doesn't really make sense - to me. Did the flows not occur in number order?

That's an odd quirk in the source, presumably because they created similar deposits which we cannot clock separately. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:27, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

• "Estimates of the volumes erupted during the various stages of the Samalas eruption have yielded variable results." Seems a little clunky to me. How about 'There are a [wide] range of estimates as to the volumes erupted during the various stages of the Samalas eruption' or similar?

Reworded this a bit. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:27, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

More to follow.

Gog the Mild (talk) 15:53, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

• "Samalas Tephra"; "Samalas tephra". Could you standardise?

Standardized. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:27, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

• "around 1259[60] - 1257" a, should be an en dash, not a hyphen; b, should be unspaced; c, the reference should be after, not within, the date range; why is range counting down?

Done, the ref has to stay there as different ages have been given by each source. I can't do endashes on my laptop AFAIK. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:27, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

• "All houses were destroyed and swept away, floating on the sea, and many people died" Quotes of less than 40 words should be contained within the text. If you don't want it in the text, use a quote box.

I am pretty sure this is a quote box. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:27, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

• "Other records of the eruption's impact include … frost rings" Do we know where these occurred? The locations of all of the other records are given, so this absence stands out.

Yeah, there are many places where frost rings have been observed, thus I've opted to have only a generic mention. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:27, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

• "respiration" needs disambiguating.

Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:27, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

• "probably because the large sulfate output altered the average size of particles and thus their radiation forcing." Should that be Radiative forcing.

Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:27, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

• " For comparison, the radiation forcing of Pinatubo's... " Could you move the link to first mention.

Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:27, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

• " Southern Annular Mode " Why the upper case initial letters?

It's apparently a proper term for that concept. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:27, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

• "by ash and high-speed sweeps of gas and rocks" Is "sweeps" the correct technical expression? If not, would it be possible t have a more felicitous word or expression?

My vocabulary is failing me on an alternative here. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:27, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

• "They are also - together with other texts - the source of the name "Samalas"." Those hyphens should be spaced en dashes.

See my previous note about en dashes. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:27, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

• I am not sure how it has happened, but there is a comma after Babad Lombok, after the block quote, which shouldn't be there.

Seems to be an artifact of the {{quote}} template. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:27, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

• "Swollen and rotting in groups of five or six, the dead lay abandoned in pigsties, on dunghills, and in the muddy streets." See above re in-text quotes and quote boxes.

I dunno, is there a better format for this? I think such a quote needs to stand alone, if only to catch some attention. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:27, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

• The section "Europe and the Near East" includes information from the "Middle East".

Changed the header. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:27, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

• "Northern Africa" might be better referred to as North Africa and linked.

Changed. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:27, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

• "Over the long term, the cooling of and sea ice expansion in the North Atlantic" I don't understand this; is there a word missing between "of" and "and"?

It's supposed to refer to "North Atlantic"; would it work better as "the cooling of the North Atlantic and sea ice expansion therein"? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:27, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

Overall a nice piece of work.

Gog the Mild (talk) 18:23, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

@Gog the Mild: Remedied and replied as appropriate. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:27, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

OK. So I have boldly sorted it out to a condition which I am happy to support - en dashes, quote boxes, a couple of new words, incorporating your suggestions (which were good). It seemed easier than going back and forth several times. That said, it is your article, so if there is anything you are not happy with, let me know here and we'll discuss.

Having gone through for a third time, I am even more impressed.

Gog the Mild (talk) 20:16, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

@Gog the Mild:Changed "fall" to "deposition" as it's not entirely clear it was a fall from the sky deal, otherwise left your edit in place. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:27, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

In which case I am happy to support. (I had typed "deposition", then thought about your comment on its frequency and changed it.) A fine FA standard article. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:31, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, in this case IMO a bit more repetition is the lesser evil. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:33, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

Image review - pass

All of the images are appropriately licensed. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:07, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

Comments Support from Cas Liber

Looking now and finding some prose issues....

• The first sentence is jarring. I would rearrange material by placing the location (sentence 3) into the first sentence. Then put the caldera/aftermath as sentence 3 (after measurement of hte eruption)
• The remains of Samalas form the Segara Anak caldera, with Mount Rinjani at its eastern edge - I'd change to "Its remains form the Segara Anak caldera, with Mount Rinjani at its eastern edge" as there are alot of "Samalas" in the sentences here.

Attempted rewrites to cover both issues. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 12:56, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

@Casliber: Not sure that The Samalas volcano erupted in 1257 CE on Lombok Island in Indonesia. It had a probable Volcanic Explosivity Index of 7, is a good replacement text, as "it" refers to the eruption but in that sequence it appears to refer to the volcano. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 18:44, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

Good point. I need to look at it again. I just think it needs a rejig for flow. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:11, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

@Casliber: I've changed a bit in the lead. Does the flow work better now? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 18:42, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

• The major volcanic event in 1257–1258 was first identified from data in ice cores - why are we saying the year range here if we've established it as in 1257?

Because at first it was not clear in which year it took place. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 07:48, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

Okay, should it be "A major volcanic event in 1257–1258 was first identified...." as the way it is written it's not clear it is Samalas at this point...or is it? It it is, then "This major volcanic event in 1257–1258 was first identified from data in ice cores.." might help link it to the previous section. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:41, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Went with A major volcanic event in 1257–1258 was first discovered from data in ice cores; Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 18:42, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

• but the winter of 1260–01 was very severe in Iceland, Italy, and elsewhere - presume this should be "1260–61"...?

Rectified. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 07:48, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

• In Europe, excess rain, cold and high cloudiness... ...err, what's "high cloudiness"?

An unusually large cloud cover/cloudy weather, basically. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 07:48, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

• the material from historical records is a bit scant (probably because of meagreness in sources), but if there is more it'd be good to embellish/flesh out.

Yeah, the science of connecting historical records to climate events is not very advanced so far. The "Social and historical consequences" section is basically all that I could dredge together on the topic that is explicitly linked to the 1257 event. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 07:48, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

• The conclusive link between these events and an eruption of Samalas was made in 2013 on the basis of historical records in Indonesia: the Babad Lombok, a series of writings in Old Javanese on palm leaves,[51] written in the 13th century, induced Franck Lavigne,[53] a geoscientist of the Pantheon-Sorbonne University[76] who had already suspected that a volcano on Lombok may be responsible, to conclude that the Samalas volcano was responsible. - this is really long and hard to follow. The way it's written suggests there are other sources reporting the eruption. If this is so they should be list. If not, then I'd remove "historical records in Indonesia:" and write something like "These events were linked to an eruption of Samalas in 2013 by the discovery/analysis of the Babad Lombok, a series of 13th-century writings in Old Javanese on palm leaves."

There is only Babad Lombok plus some tree data. I've split the sentence up. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 07:48, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

In which case recommend removing "historical records in Indonesia:" - the segment is still pretty wordy. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:41, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Attempted a further rewrite. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 18:42, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

• The signal is the strongest in the southern hemisphere for the last 1000 years - "for" is awkward here. "over"?

That works, done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 07:48, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

• one reconstruction even considers it the strongest of the last 2500 years - surely this can be tacked on somehow onto the 1000 years sentence?

Did so, but I wonder now about the next sentence, it looks a bit lonely. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 07:48, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

• It is possible that the eruption helped trigger the Little Ice Age, a centuries-long cold period during the last thousand years. - how about, "The eruption had a possible role in triggering the 450-year long Little Ice Age" or somesuch.

Did a variant. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 07:48, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

Overall I feel the prose has a choppiness to it but am having trouble identifying ways to smoothe it out. Am reading more..Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:54, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

@Casliber: Actioned the comments so far. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 07:48, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

I tend to agree re. choppiness based on my own reading and light ce a few days ago, although I think (not just through my ce) that it's looking better. Cas, are you ready to take another look? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:10, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

It's looking better apart from part of one paragraph in body of text discussed above. Also I am in two minds about the lead, but I can't make out any alterantive Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:23, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

I've changed the lead and that paragraph. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 18:42, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

@Jo-Jo Eumerus and Ian Rose: tell me what you think of this rejig of the lead (which I have reverted for the time being). I think it should be congealed into two paragraphs, and this way is more chronological and presents the eruption in a sequential fashion. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 22:25, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

@Casliber: You know, that lead actually looks quite good. Less stubby-paragraph style than the current one. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:17, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

ok great. I think so too. Some bits might go better in slightly different locations, but have a play with it. I have just unreverted - just experiment ... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 09:55, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

@Casliber: Did some more changes. Anything else to do? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:24, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

Nearly there....one final query - how important is it to say " This eruption had four distinct phases" in the lead? Would any meaning be lost by removing it? (particularly as there don't appear to be four phases then listed...?) Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:05, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

@Casliber:Not really important, I'd say. In fact, yesterday I was wondering whether to yank it. I've removed it now. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 06:54, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

Ok, smoothing out the lead has been really important for the article and I think we're across the line now. Nothing is jumping out at me now prose-wise (I guess if I looked really hard I could find some stuff but it isn't obvious) and it's pretty comprehensive. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 07:50, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 08:46, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.