Wikipedia:Peer review/Mauna Loa/archive3

Mauna Loa

Previous peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because it's an aging FA from 2006 that needs work as the last piece of my GT (FT?). I know it's received a review already, in January, but I'd like some experienced editors to jump on this and tell me about what I need to do to get a GA nom, or maybe preserve that star.

Thanks, ResMar 23:17, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Comments from Casliber

• The Mokuʻāweoweo section - first para unreferenced and some more info could be added. e.g. An American visit in 1840 turned into a trip of almost a month. - how long and why could be added/tweaked.

• Ditto first para of Origins section (needs referencing) - find a good source and you might find more exacting info.

• Actually I see a few unreferenced paras here and there. Start with them. I suspect you'll find other info to add and some that might need rewording. Once fully sourced then we can start with the copyediting.

• Amalgamate one and two sentence segments into more cohesive paras.

Comments from Chemist234

The article is very interesting, educational and generally very good, although it will benefit from a more academic style of writing. First of all, it requires more references. Occasionally, one stumbles on inconclusive statements, for instance, the bombing in 1935 (see below). I see here several point for the improvement:

• The structure of the article. It looks to me that your first goal was to describe the volcano and the specifics of its activity. To maintain the focus on the subject, I suggest moving "Climate" and "Ascents" further to the end of the article.
• I recommend adding to the introduction the fact that since 1832 there were 32 eruptions documented.
• The last paragraph under "Structure" (beginning with Tradewinds) seems to belong to "Climate" rather than to "Structure".
• I agree with Casliber on suggested additions to the first paragraph of Mokuʻāweoweo. I also suggest to find an appropriate place for this paragraph in the section "Ascents".
• Your "Wilkes expedition" reads like a novel. It would be great and would make the entire article more interesting if you could similarly add some more facts and details to the earlier ascents. For "Today", one could, perhaps, add a map showing the existing trails for those who plan to visit.
• I suggest working on the sentence "It is sometimes reported that missionary Joseph Goodrich ...". "Sometimes" is perhaps not the best word. "Several sources" is closer to the intended meaning. References to those reports would help, too.
• In "Historic eruptions", paragraph 4, air force is would be more descriptive than air power. Did the bombing described successful in diverting the path of lava?
• The first paragraph of "Current activity" requires a reference. Also, the term of inflation in the context of volcano activity needs to be defined.
• Section "Hazards", last sentence of the first paragraph: It is unclear why towns build on the recent lava deposits are in particular danger. Is it because lava of future eruptions is likely to follow the same path?
• In "Monitoring", paragraph 2 requires a reference.

Good luck, Chemist234 (talk) 07:19, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

OK I may have jumped the gun a bit by putting this to PR before starting work. Upon close inspection what's there is definitely salvageable, but the issue is that there's a lot of holes, both in content and sourcing. So it's going to need extensive work either way (not that I didn't already know that). I plan to rework the article and then ask you guys' opinions once more. Until then, thanks for the comments! (I'll leave this open for a bit longer to get people's quips in; the quick response very much surprised me, but I suppose that's what you get when you've been here long enough). ResMar 00:17, 10 December 2012 (UTC)