Talk:1886 eruption of Mount Tarawera/GA1

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

Reviewer: Zawed (talk · contribs) 09:35, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Pulling up my chair for this one. I actually had vague intentions of working to improve this article as I have the Geoff Conly book on the event. I will do an initial pass for any obvious issues and then once those have been sorted, will look to do a detailed review of the prose. Zawed (talk) 09:35, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Initial comments

On my initial pass I have identified a number of issues, some major:

• I note several cites in the lead. There is no need for this as it should be a summary of the body of the article, which should be fully cited.
• For context for readers, it would be useful to have a separate section, following the discussion of the area's geology, that covers the history/population base of the area/names of population centres and so on, before launching into the Prelude. Some of the existing stuff discussing the Pink and White Terraces could be moved to this new section.
• I would like to see more on the Buried Village and the rescue efforts that followed the eruption. Also the tohunga mentioned in the Prelude section should be discussed as a survivor given his relationship to the event. Locals believed he had jinxed them
• The article isn't as up to date as it should be; in the Pink and White Terraces section, the most recent sourcedates to 2017, but there is more recent news regarding these, and in particular their location, that could be added. Bizarrely current cite [26], a Stuff article dating to March 2021, does have this information but isn't used for this purpose.
• Some details are uncited, I have added cite needed tags to indicate these.
• I have major concerns regarding the sourcing. Doing some checks mostly on the early sections, I have found several issues:

• From the lead: Lake Rotomahana, the former site of the terraces, significantly expanded as a result of the eruption as it filled portions of the newly formed rift valley. This is cited to [5], a webpage titled "Rotomahana project background". The link actually points to a different page, and on that page, there is nothing that supports the sentence above. I also note that this fact doesn't appear in the body of the article.
• Also from the lead: It is the deadliest eruption in New Zealand recorded history, although more people died in the lahar-caused Tangiwai disaster in 1953. This is cited to [6] which the NZ History page on Tangawai. It doesn't compare Tangawai to Tarawera so what is in the lead is more an opinion. As with the previous bullet point, this fact doesn't appear in the body of the article.
• From the Geology section: Other volcanoes that form part of the Ōkataina complex include the Haroharo vents and Lake Rotomā, while the complex also includes geothermal features such as Waiotapu. Mount Tarawera reached a height of 1,080 metres (3,540 ft) prior to the eruption, and had three distinct peaks: Wahanga at the north, followed by the highest peak of Ruawahia in the centre, and Tarawera as the southernmost peak. This is cited to [8], a webpage titled "Other events and outcomes" but the link points to a webpage titled "Mount Tarawera eruption"; this does not support any of the content of the first sentence quoted, and only parts of the second.
• Also from the Geology section. The sentence that follows that recited above is cited to [9], a webpage titled "Volcanic hazards at Okataina Centre". The link actually points to a different page, and on that page, there is nothing that supports the sentence above.
• Cite [15] is to what appears to be a book Tawawera by R. F. Keam; no page numbers are given.
• From the Casualties section: This is disputed by local iwi, with oral accounts from Ngāti Hinemihi stating a death toll of thousands. This is presently cited to [22], which is a pdf of a presentation by the manager of the Earthquake Commission. I would like to see a more robust cite for this. In fact, the Ngāti Hinemihi casualty count seems implausible given what is known of the area's population so am not sure whether it is worthy of inclusion.
• Note the above is just what I have assessed so far, I haven't checked all of them.

• As a general comment on the sourcing, a wide range is used but in a hodgepodge fashion – those that work at least. I think that many could be deleted and sourcing consolidated to select sources. For example, Yarwood (present cite [12]) looks to have a lot of useful material, including some covered above, such as the names/height of Tawawera.

I have halted this review for now as it seems to me that in light of the sourcing issues identified so far, that an in-depth integrity check is going to be needed across the entire article to verify the alleged cited content. The coverage could be improved as well. As such at this stage, I do not believe that the Verifiable and Broad Coverage criteria for a Good Article are met. To remedy these would involve extensive effort so I propose to do a quick fail here to allow the necessary remedial work to take place outside of the GA process. Zawed (talk) 11:09, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I have no idea how that happened (some of it at least is likely link rot as I did the majority of the work on the article a year ago and forgot to check the refs again prior to submitting for GA). I feel like I'll be able to address most of these over the next couple of days / weekend if you're comfortable holding off for a bit, then if there's still a significant amount of work to be done the article could be failed at that point? Would that be okay?

I have already made a few edits, addressing some of your citation required points and moving citations out of the lede. I've also got rid of the stuff around Tangiwai, I definitely saw a comparison somewhere but as Tangiwai wasn't caused by an eruption I think it's less relevant in the scheme of things. Turnagra (talk) 18:40, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Happy to leave things for a few days to see how you get on. Cheers, Zawed (talk) 09:03, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have started helping as located a trust worthy contemporary reference. Main issue outstanding from my own knowledge is that this was predominantly a basaltic eruption and there are implications of this covered in the recent literature that I will have to hunt upChaseKiwi (talk) 22:44, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

suggest the right place to put the incidental heights issue is as a note, As said this not directly relevant to article. Somewhere we need a note in a high quality article I think to tell reader the height survey error as of 1888 is of order of 50m and that worthy of a note. In case relevant to Pink and White terrace section I will also do some more research into why the 1887 retrospective map as to location terraces may or may not be inaccurate. I was interested to see that the positions of the fresh surface fault traces to the west in this map seem to map with subsequent knowledge and can not recall anyone commenting on this in the literature I have read but will check ChaseKiwi (talk) 07:49, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, and apologies for the unintentionally substantial changes to your edits! I'm wondering if you have access to this article? I had access when I first upgraded the article but don't anymore, so can't double check the refs as needed. I suspect it's the chapter on Tarawera but can't confirm until I'm able to access it. (found the article) Turnagra (talk) 08:36, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Zawed - I've still got a bit to do on the Pink and White Terraces section, but would be interested to hear any early thoughts you had on whether we're closer to being able to proceed with a GA review at this point? I've gone through the sources and double checked that they work and back up what they're citing, have added page numbers to those sources which have pages, and have tried to consolidate them where possible. I've also added a human interaction section as you suggested (please let me know if you think there's a better name for that, I struggled with naming it) and have expanded on the rescue efforts and casualties. Hopefully this is a little closer to the mark now! Turnagra (talk) 20:57, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Turnagra, even on a skim read it seems to me that the article is in much better shape than previously and I am confident that it will be at or close to GA standard. The amount of work that you and ChaseKiwi have put in here is extremely impressive, great job! I will take a closer look, including a detailed assessment of the prose, over the weekend. Cheers, Zawed (talk) 23:00, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I do not think I can add anything useful on the faulting post event so think my additions are finished. Have gone through lots of pictures and from about 1888 to about 1910 there are definite pictures as in Thomas's stretches from photos of quite deep and fresh faults (one was 90 feet deep) so those faults off to northwest not insignificant perhaps as some claimed. But found no academic analysis consistent with modern geology understanding. Certainly learnt how little understood big volcanoes and volcanic-tectonic interaction was in 1888 due to the influence of uniformitarianism that had explained so much in the previous 50 years but was not quite up to the catastrophism of some volcanoes. I have reviewed the controversy literature on previous features such as the past lakes and Pink and White Terraces trying to stick to as objective extract as possible in relevant articles and tidied up associated pages to be more consistent, and sometimes to add more detail. Pretty convinced myself that no one in the controversy has got everything exactly right, but some are more right than others and its been interesting revisting, as at least have some field understanding, even if not that of a geologist. ChaseKiwi (talk) 13:43, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think present reference 29 for the 60 m difference in lake level is not likely to be an accurate source. See note I have made Lake Rotomahana article. ChaseKiwi (talk) 23:56, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah I suspect as much too - I wonder if they're conflating it getting 60m deeper with it rising 60m? The former would make more sense to me as the original lake bed would've been completely destroyed in the eruption. I still need to do some more work on that section anyway so will add it to the list. Turnagra (talk) 10:18, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Zawed - sorry for the ping again but I think the article is ready to go now. I've expanded and updated the Pink & White Terraces section to include some more recent stuff, but it does seem that at some point it devolved into a bit of a back and forth fight with the articles essentially being "no, you're wrong" so I'm not sure how much more useful stuff there is beyond 2019. Turnagra (talk) 22:28, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

OK, will look at this more closely now. Zawed (talk) 09:14, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Review

Fantastic work done here to bring the article up to snuff. Looking at this more closely, I have the following comments:

Lead

• Don't think Rotorua was a 'city' in 1886

  Have got rid of the extra words there to just say "near Rotorua"

• ...and explosions to be heard as far away as Blenheim...: suggest "...and explosions to be heard as far away as Blenheim..."

  Changed this

• British empire should be rendered as British Empire

  Fixed

Geology

• Needs to mention North Island, New Zealand

  Added in a brief few words in the opening sentence, let me know if you'd like a bit more or if this suffices

• Suggest adding a couple of sentences to expand on the Pink and White Terraces to help explain why these were interesting nature features

  I've started this bit, but need to add a bit more later on Finished this, but let me know if more is needed (or different content)

Human interaction

• Not crazy about the heading but it seems you aren't either. How about 'Background'?

  Yeah I think that's good enough - still not perfect as it's ambiguous but it'll do for now

• Add an English translation in brackets for Māori terms e.g. iwi, whakapapa, waka etc...

  I think I got all of them

• chiefly burial-ground: don't think the hyphen should be there?

  I had one in there to match the source but you're right, have removed

• estimated £1800 per year: it would be useful to have a modern day comparison for this figure

  Have added in a figure using the RBNZ inflation calculator based on 1885 as a pre-eruption date

• Perhaps mention Rotorua for context here (since it is mentioned in the lead)

  Have added a little bit, but it's more of a modern location reference as Rotorua wasn't really that prominent of a town prior to the eruption.

Prelude

• Inconsistent presentation of dates. Some are ordinals, some aren't

  Changed these to be consistent

• On 31 May, 11 days...: write out 11 as it is a low number

  Done

Eruption

• Inconsistent presentation of times. Some are e.g. 1:00am, some are 1:00 am, and at least one is 01:00.

  Changed these to be consistent with

  MOS:TIME

• Inconsistent presentation of distances/lengths; in some cases metric is given first with imperial conversion in brackets, in others imperial is given first with a metric conversion in brackets

• Have done some of these, but how should this be done when it's specifically talking about a person's account (eg. "one observer estimated the cloud as 6 miles high"), since they wouldn't have made their observation in metric?

• You could quote the observation and then put the conversion outside of the quote? Zawed (talk) 09:37, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Okay, I've done this now - there's only one mention with imperial first, where it's specifically talking about what an observer described. Turnagra (talk) 19:37, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• link Tauranga, Auckland

  Done

• The mention of the sound of the eruption in Christchurch should be moved to the first portion of the paragraph, discussing Kaikoura and Blenheim.

  Moved and reworded

• Immediate studies promoted by...: is promoted the right word here? Maybe you mean prompted?

  Done

Up to casualties section, more to come. Zawed (talk) 10:10, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks - have made a few early changes as outlined above. Will get to the rest when I've got a bit more time. Turnagra (talk) 10:36, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry: Have added a new official report reference just ahead of the casualties section which has two watch timings of the first flash of light from Tarawera. I had not thought this article likely to be significant due to poor choice of title and others seem to have missed its significance. ChaseKiwi (talk) 10:48, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There has also crept in a geological terminology inaccuracy likely due to someone not being familiar with modern geochemical definitions of igneous rock types. ChaseKiwi (talk) 00:32, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Casualties

• While the true number of deaths...: I'm probably being unnecessarily pedantic, but the usage of "true" strikes me as inferring other numbers are lies. Unless it is hewing too close to the source, perhaps "actual" could be used?

  Changed to actual

• many of the survivors from Te Wairoa instead moved...: "instead" here seems unnecessary

  I had meant that to mean that they moved instead of rebuilding, but that was definitely ambiguous. Have reworded it to be clearer.

• Is it necessary to recite names in full e.g. Sophia Hinerangi, Tūhoto Ariki, after they have already been introduced?

  I've changed it for Sophia, but I'm less certain about Tūhoto Ariki as Ariki is a specific title in Māoridom, so I'm not sure whether it's his name or that. The sources that I've found tend to refer to him as Tūhoto in subsequent mentions so I've gone with that, but I'm conscious that it feels less in line with wiki guidelines so happy to just stick to the full name if that'd be better. I'd be hesitant about just referring to him as Ariki though.

• Ah yes, I think it is being used as a title. Happy with usage of Tūhoto for subsequent mentions.

Effects

• with other studies continuing to propose other outcomes.: suggest "alternative outcomes" to avoid repetition of "other"

  Changed

Other stuff

• Several dupe links (use the tool on left side)

  Fixed all of these (except for one where it's being used in lieu of a redirect)

• Images check out OK
• The titles of the sources are inconsistent. Mostly are in sentence case but a few are in title case

  I haven't checked these yet so I don't know whether it's the case, but should these just be consistent or should they match the format used on the article itself?

• Yes, it is a matter of being consistent presentation. Zawed (talk) 09:37, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Okay, no worries - should be all good now! There are quite a few capitals in the names still, but that's because of how many proper nouns all the titles seem to use. Turnagra (talk) 19:37, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That's it for now, I will probably circle around for one more pass once all of the above have been addressed. Please ping me when this is ready. Cheers, Zawed (talk) 09:22, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Zawed thanks, I've addressed some of these already - I wasn't sure about which tool you're referring to though for the dupe links, as I can't see anything obvious. Could you please clarify? Turnagra (talk) 10:21, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Zawed apologies for the second ping, everything should be done now, with the exception of the few areas where I've got questions above. If you're able to please clarify I should be able to get this fixed up tomorrow. Turnagra (talk) 09:52, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Just a quick heads up that I'll now have intermittent internet access for the next week or so - I'll try to fix up anything remaining as soon as I get responses to the above questions but it might be slightly delayed. Turnagra (talk) 20:16, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Have responded as above, this is looking in good shape and anticipate passing as GA once the minor outstanding matters are attended to. Cheers, Zawed (talk) 09:37, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the responses, Zawed - should be all sorted now! Would be good to get a final look over and hopefully pass the article. Turnagra (talk) 19:37, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have had another pass of this, and made a few tweaks here and there, mainly to consolidate refs and adjust what I thought was slightly awkward phrasing. I am satisfied that this meets the criteria for GA so am passing as such. I think with a bit more work it could be made up to FA standard. If you do take it to FAC, give me a ping, I would be happy to take a look at it there. Cheers, Zawed (talk) 09:52, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the review (and for putting up with my persistent pings!) I'd love to try and get this up to featured status, and would appreciate any thoughts from you on what much further would be needed or what areas to focus on. Turnagra (talk) 09:58, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]