# Talk:Azure Window

The intro following the collapse contains the sentence "The small rock over the water is no longer accessible by walking." In fact the rock column that was connected by the arch also collapsed and is no longer even visible above the water. Is this sentence talking about a different rock or should it be removed? RichardW72 (talk) 08:36, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
Since nobody has clarified or objected, I've removed the sentence. As far as I am aware there is no "small rock over the water" that was previously accessible by walking but is not accessible by walking following the collapse. RichardW72 (talk) 09:07, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

Please change the line that starts "In March 2017..." to "Following gale force winds on the night between 7th and 8th March, the Azure Window gave in to the corrosion.".... or something along those lines, to provide the exact details for future references. Mt0101 (talk) 14:39, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

 Already done by Xwejnusgozo (talk). regards, DRAGON BOOSTER  ★ 04:15, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

It appears that the stormy weather around the time of collapse is related to the low pressure area which caused disruption in France 6-7 March as storm "Zeus", has anyone any knowledge of a source/ref which would support this? as otherwise far too original research for link.Lacunae (talk) 17:43, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

@GetSomeUtah: the source says "he was at the Azure Window when it collapsed around 9.40am." [1] Either get a reliable source that says that the arch collapsed at exactly 9.40 am or leave the 'around' there, thank you. --Deeday-UK (talk) 23:06, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

@Deeday-UK:  Great.  So all we need to do is actually put the source citation next to the sentence and we're done.  In fact, I'll do it for you.  Regards, GetSomeUtah (talk) 09:49, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

I agree, there should be a photo included of how the site currently looks.
However, it should NOT be just ANY photo.  The photo should match a previous photo of how the site looked pre-collapse.
For example, check out the entry on New Hampshire's "Old Man of the Mountain."
It has an overlay photo that shows/combines pre- and post-collapse.
I think such a 'matched' photo will emphasize what was lost where just any photo of the post-collapse would look like just about ANY seaside cliff picture.
But, yes, there should be a current pic included. 2600:8800:50B:6700:C23F:D5FF:FEC5:89B6 (talk) 15:00, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Thank you to Schoschi for adding the photo, and to “sebown-travel” (a person posting to the TripAdvisor site ) for giving permission to use their photo. Jmg38 (talk) 19:21, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Azure Window/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Jens Lallensack (talk · contribs) 07:11, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Will review now. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 07:11, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

However, following a century of natural erosion, large sections of the limestone arch had broken off and fallen into the sea. – Are you referring to partial collapses between the 1980s and 2000s, or the final collapse in 2017? If the latter is the case, then it reads a bit repetitive, as the collapse has been mentioned before. Then maybe formulate like this: "The final collapse followed a century of successive erosion …" or something similar, focusing on the cause of the collapse.
Dr Peter Gatt – The convention is to not use titles such as "Dr." Best introduce him as "geologist Peter Gatt", if he is one.
The section "Formation" is more about the history than the actual geological processes that formed it, and I still have a poor idea here. How to make a cave and an arc from a crack, and what sort of crack was that (a crack that did not extent up to the roof, it seems?)
more later! --Jens Lallensack (talk) 07:35, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
In March 2016, Dr. Gatt warned that the use of explosives – I would mention right here that the use of explosive was illegal, to get the reader on the right track.
The first two sentences of the "Geology" section are very general information (not geological) that should be placed right at the beginning of the article, before the history. I suggest putting a new section containing all general information, including the sites around.
The geology has some flaws: The Lower Coralline Limestone is no rock type, it is a geological formation.
When mentioning the nearby sites, Dwejra Tower would be something to mention also.
Geology is too short: At least a more precise description of the rock types the arc was made of would be nice. There would be plenty of information in the linked sources.
All in all, it is a neat small article, and good work with the sources! However, the geological aspect is central for this topic, and needs more covering here. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 20:51, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
Pinging @Xwejnusgozo: in case he did not note. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 21:47, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

@Jens Lallensack: Thanks for taking the time to do the review. :) I just made most of the changes as stated above. I still need to edit/expand the "Formation" and "Geology" sections, which I'll try to do most probably from the detailed 2013 report already mentioned in the article. I don't really know a lot about geology, hence the lack of information, but I'll try my best to include more detail. --Xwejnusgozo (talk) 12:38, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
@Xwejnusgozo: That is a very valuable source indeed. I do have some background in geology and would be happy to help out if you are interested? --Jens Lallensack (talk) 15:27, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
@Jens Lallensack: I added more information in the "Geology" section. Can you have a look to see if it is comprehensive enough (and to check if I made any mistakes) please? I'm thinking about writing some short articles on the different formations of limestone in Malta (eg. Lower Coralline Limestone so that there would be more background there. --Xwejnusgozo (talk) 12:39, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
PS. Sorry for the delay, I was a bit busy in real life.
Thanks. And no problem; I might take some time, as I am travelling right now, but I try to have a look as soon as possible! --Jens Lallensack (talk) 12:59, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
The main source on geology seems to have a mistake in the title; “on” not “for”. I could not find info related ro fauna and flora which stood on the top on the window, presumably was similar to close by stable land.Continentaleurope (talk) 20:16, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
Thanks everybody. I allowed myself to make additional amendments to the geology, please check if appropriate. As the article now meets all GA criteria, I will pass now. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 16:41, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

@Jens Lallensack: Thank you :) --Xwejnusgozo (talk) 20:05, 7 April 2018 (UTC)