Talk:Mount Aniakchak

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

List of plant species[edit]

Available here Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:34, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cave-adapted species[edit]

This source may offer information on a species here. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:33, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Report draft[edit]

If there is a final version of this report (website says it's a draft) it could be useful. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:16, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Contemporary newspapers[edit]

Didn't include any contemporary newspapers, but if folks want them here is a list. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:37, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Aniakchak II date[edit]

Huge thanks to @Jo-Jo Eumerus for expanding the article. I would like to add that Aniakchak II is securely dated to 1628±1 BCE using dendrochronology, which eliminates any age uncertainty. The date 1623±4 BCE, reported by Pearce2017, was based on GICC05 calibrated against the IntCal13 curve. This carried over the uncertainty of the calibration curve. This uncertainty was resolved when sulfate spikes from the 17th century BCE perfectly matched dendrochronology-dated tree-ring anomalies [1]. The tephras in one of the sulfate spikes were geochemically linked to Aniakchak II [2].

Now the date 1629 BCE is used to anchor GICC21. Aleral Wei (talk) 05:29, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sometimes I really wonder if the problem with dating Thera is the overreliance on just one dating technique (radiocarbon) for every sample. Has anyone ever tried non-radiocarbon methods like argon-argon or surface exposure dating? For that matter, do we have a sure idea how long it took? Sorry, back to Aniakchak, I've put that date in. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:04, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The debate just revolves around whether the eruption occurred within a few decades before or after the accession of Ahmose I (ca. 1560 BCE), marking the beginning of the New Kingdom. Among all the techniques of radioisotope dating, only radiocarbon comes close to this level of precision for Holocene samples (in the case of Ar/Ar, too young to decay enough 40Ar to be measured with meaningful accuracy). With luck, WMD dates may have sub-decadal uncertainty, but the samples found in the volcanic layer are olive branches, which are unsuitable for WMD.
Ice core or dendrochronology holds more potential. Thus far, no Thera tephra has been located in any core, and no tree-ring event has been unambiguously identified as originating from Thera. Frankly, we are stuck. Aleral Wei (talk) 20:52, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I figure that the problem with the ice cores is that if Thera was a phreatomagmatic eruption, water would have scrubbed most of the sulfur and altered the climate response á la Hunga Tonga-Hunga Ha'apai. A Hunga Tonga-like explosion might also explain the tsunami-mass contradiction noted here, too. But I don't think we have much knowledge on how to spot Hunga Tonga-like eruptions from ice cores. Sorry, I think I should continue on Talk:Minoan eruption. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:01, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review[edit]

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Mount Aniakchak/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Ealdgyth (talk · contribs) 15:32, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'll get to this shortly. Ealdgyth (talk) 15:32, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (reference section): b (inline citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:
  6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:
  • I randomly googled three phrases and only turned up Wikipedia mirrors. Earwig's tool shows no sign of copyright violation.
  • Spotchecks:
    • "Aniakchak is about 670 kilometres (420 mi) southwest from Anchorage, Alaska, within the Aniakchak National Monument and Preserve" is sourced to this source p. 2 which supports the information
    • "but if such a caldera formed, its explosive activity left no traces" is sourced to the above source p. 52 which supports the information
    • "A more than 25 kilometres (16 mi) high eruption column rose over the volcano" is sourced to this source p. 54 which supports the information.
  • General:
    • Some duplicate links need to be checked for - examples include the "Tertiary" links in the first and second paragraphs of Geology, "fractional crystalization" linked twice in the last paragraph of composition, "lichens" twice in the second paragraph of Climate, etc.
    • Nag again about "metres" ... American English, not British. Also look for "colour", "neighbour"
  • Lead:
    • "1628 ± 1 BCE" what does the "±" mean here for the non-specialist?
    • "in Bristol Bay." is this close or far from the location of the volcano?
  • Geography:
    • "volcanic caves" link?
  • Geology:
    • "during the Tertiary" Tertiary what? Era? Epoch? Period?
    • "Volcanoes close to Aniakchak include Yantarni to the east, Black Peak and Veniaminof to the southwest; Black Peak has emplaced ash layers on Aniakchak." the second part feels very tacked on - suggest "Volcanoes close to Aniakchak include Yantarni to the east, Veniaminof and Black Peak to the southwest;[35] the later is close enough to have emplaced ash layers on Aniakchak." maybe?
      • Mmm, doesn't seem like proximity is important for the source, though. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:56, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • "the formation of the caldera may be facilitated by a tectonic discontinuity" "the caldera" is this just the specific calder at Aniakchak or all the caldera of the Arc?
  • Composition:
    • "ascent into the crust" I believe you mean "ascend"?
    • "Part of the mush region was evacuated during the Aniakchak II eruption." can we use another word besides "evacuated" as there could be confusion between the differing definitions of evacuate - to excavate or to have people leave an area.
  • Climate:
    • "Kodiak bears, foxes and caribou populate the region." I think this would be better in the last paragraph of this section - it feels very tacked on in the paragraph on temperatures/climate
  •  Aniakchak II eruption:
    • "mostly unwelded" link for this as the usual meaning of "welded" is the joining of two metallic items with heat ..
      • It means the same in volcanology, but with pebbles and individual rocks. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:56, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • "where they ponded against" link for "ponded"
      • I am pretty sure that ponding is a normal English term? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:56, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Impacts:
    • "Vegetation and human populations on the Alaska Peninsula were devastated by the eruption" but animal populations weren't affected?
      • Much less research was done on the impact on animal populations. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:56, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • "but they may not have time to escape to safe distance" this reads awkwardly but I'm not sure of a better way to say this...
  • Intracaldera lake:
    • "forming a scabland, and deposited gravel bars," links for scabland and gravel bars?
      • Did for the first, my impression is that a bar made out of gravel, akin to sandbar, was normal English. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:56, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • 1931 eruption:
    • "Several different sources of magma contributed to this eruption, and a few centuries before new basaltic melts had entered the system." I'm not sure what the "and a few centuries before.." phrase means .. is there a word missing?
      • It means that a number of magmas took part, including one that had entered the system a little before. I dunno how to formulate this? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:56, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As usual, I've done some light copyediting - please check to make sure I didn't break anything or change the meaning.
Sorry for the delay - it's been a wild month (as usual) and I just didn't find the time I thought I would.
I've put the article on hold for seven days to allow folks to address the issues I've brought up. Feel free to contact me on my talk page, or here with any concerns, and let me know one of those places when the issues have been addressed. If I may suggest that you strike out, check mark, or otherwise mark the items I've detailed, that will make it possible for me to see what's been addressed, and you can keep track of what's been done and what still needs to be worked on. Ealdgyth (talk) 15:32, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Changes look good, passing this now. Ealdgyth (talk) 14:44, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Did you know nomination[edit]

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by PrimalMustelid talk 12:04, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(
)
Created by Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk).

Number of QPQs required: 2. DYK is currently in unreviewed backlog mode and nominator has 159 past nominations.

Post-promotion hook changes will be logged on the talk page; consider watching the nomination until the hook appears on the Main Page.

Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:44, 1 April 2024 (UTC).[reply]

  • Review:
General: Article is new enough and long enough
Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
QPQ: Done.

Overall: I'm curious if the "1628 ± 1 BCE" precision is conducive to readability in a hook. While I don't personally have a problem with it, my guess it this kind of thing is discouraged for the purposes of hook readability. Alternatives to consider might be "approximately 1628", "ca. 1628", "1628/7", "1628/1627", or "17th century BCE". Not a big deal, but it is something that stuck out. I should note that the fulfillment of the "hook cited" criterion here is somewhat unorthodox. Most hooks that I review are cited directly in the article, in one or two sentences. This hook as a whole, however, appears cited in discrete parts, in multiple sections, with the first part of the hook cited in the "Aniakchak II eruption" section ("the 1628 ± 1 BCE eruption of Mount Aniakchak"), followed by the second part cited in the "Impacts on humans and the environment" section ("might have depopulated part of the area around Aniakchak"), with the "might have" wording differing slightly from the certainty of the hook itself, which instead asserts that the depopulation occurred without the hedge. This is in turn followed by the last part of the hook which is cited in the "Intracaldera lake" section ("produced one of the largest floods of the last 10,000 years"). I will be the first to admit that I've never seen a hook composed this way before. The "might have depopulated" assertion may require a hook adjustment. To summarize: waiting for a response from the nominator, mostly due to concerns about date presentation and the certainty of the depopulation in the hook vs. the hedging of the source material. I'm also curious what another reviewer will think when they try to find the hook cited in the article. Viriditas (talk) 20:42, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The thing about the Aniakchak eruption is that it is one of a few prehistoric eruptions were we know the year with some certainty. 1628/1627 might be a better formulation, though. I don't think that a hook being supported by distinct parts of the article is a problem; I was more worrying about the length. Right on the depopulation bit. I'll propose two ALTs. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:10, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at the hooks now with fresh eyes, which do you prefer, the original "1628 ± 1 BCE" date or the new one? Also, it is okay to strike out ALT0? And do you prefer ALT1 or ALT2 or do you have no preference? Viriditas (talk) 20:52, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Either ALT1 or ALT2 work; I prefer ALT1 as it is fairly definitive, but it's something other people ought to decide on. Also corrected the article. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:15, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Prefer ALT1. Good to go, IMO. Viriditas (talk) 08:47, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Settlement dates[edit]

The Alaskan Peninsula was settled about 7,000 years ago by people who practiced hunter-gatherer lifestyles.

The cited source is from 2007, which in turn cites anthropologist David Damas in a document from 1984 for the claim on p. 23. (Clark 1984). This means that the dating is at least 40 years old, but likely much older than that. My understanding, and I could very well be wrong in this instance, is that within the last ten years, all of these settlement dates have been pushed back much farther in time and a lot of the history has been or is being completely rewritten. At first glance, based on recent sources, 7,000 years sounds far too recent. Our article on Paleo-Indians indicates that the dating fluctuates wildly, and I've seen dates as old as 30,000 years in other works, although it isn't clear how that applies to Alaska in particular. It might be instructive to look into this at a future date and see if there are any newer sources on the settlement dates. Viriditas (talk) 22:30, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid that Alaskan population history is not my specialty. But it wouldn't surprise me if that date has been superseded since then; consider that Monte Verde goes back to about 14,500 years ago and the people there must have at some point passed through Alaska. It's just that I can't find a source on the Alaskan Peninsula from a quick read. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:22, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's fine. I was reminded of the recent dating controversy of White Sands fossil footprints, which skeptics tried, but failed, to shoot down. It's now thought to be dated to between 21,000 and 23,000 years ago. I also read something similar about other finds in California. My understanding is that if you tried to show this, in let's say 1984, people would have laughed you out of the room. I'm just saying there's been a sea change in the acceptance of older dates in North America over time. Another point that I've observed, is that even though there's always going to be discussion about the accuracy of dates, my reading of older textbooks on this subject tells me that scientists in the 20th century were far more hesitant to think in terms of deeper time than they are today. I recall reading about at least one famous professor at the University of California, Berkeley in the early part of that century who held the study of Ohlone people back for decades due to his control of the department and influence. Sometimes the greatest threats to scientific advancement and understanding come from within because people are entirely unwilling to change their beliefs when new evidence arises. Viriditas (talk) 20:47, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Vegetation growth[edit]

vegetation growth was slow for up to a century at 1,100 kilometers (680 mi) from the volcano

Is this true, though? Ecologists were surprised to discover how fast vegetation grew back in the wasteland left behind by the Mount St. Helens eruption. And on the Big Island of Hawaii and elsewhere, it's remarkable how fast plant life gets going provided there is wind dispersal and rain. Something tells me this is wrong. Viriditas (talk) 23:04, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

On second thought and deeper reflection, a century of slow plant growth seems like a reasonable statement given the magnitude of the destruction. Viriditas (talk) 23:11, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Mount_Aniakchak&oldid=1217778142"