# Talk:1669 eruption of Mount Etna

I see that Baffle gab1978 has tagged this article as {{Use American English}} - was this a decision based on the spelling style of the article? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:00, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

I've only found "urbanized" and " color" as indicators and the latter was changed from "colour" by Baffle gab1978 in their recent edits, so before that there was no clear indication either way as far as I can see. Mikenorton (talk) 12:33, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

The article currently states in the footnote that the Amenano river was buried beneath its lava flows, based on the 2017 source. However, Wolfgang Sartorius von Walterschausen in his posthumously published book writes a detailed argument that the 1669 eruption did not cause the disappearance of the Amenano. It's from 1880, but much more detailed than the 2017 source, so I am not sure what would be the more reliable source in this context. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:58, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:1669 eruption of Mount Etna/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Kaiser matias (talk · contribs) 00:48, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

I'll start looking this over shortly. Kaiser matias (talk) 00:48, 21 December 2020 (UTC)


### Comments
The lead image is great, really neat to have a contemporary image like that.
Thanks. It's probably the benefit of the eruption being well-covered. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 14:08, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
"...and on the 1 or 16 April it reached its city walls..." Is that the correct dates? Just seems like a wide variety; I'd also drop the "the" before the number, as that isn't needed (so "and on 1 or 16 April"). Same with the sentence "Between the 18 and 25 March..." later on.
I dunno, different sources report different dates. I suspect the problem might be that the article relies entirely on secondary sources and thus mostly on second-hand information when (as far as I can tell) none of the primary sources are considered to be particularly questionable; I'll see if the resident expert on the correct usage of history sources has an opinion on the matter. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 14:08, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
"...Sicily, a large island in the Ionian Sea." Describing Sicily as being in the Ionian Sea is interesting; I had never heard it described as such, and while it may be technically correct, I feel that it would be better noting it's in the Mediterranean; this is also what the Sicily article itself notes.
I've rewritten it; no idea how that slid in. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 14:08, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
" Etna is one of the most iconic and active volcanoes in the world; its eruptions – including both effusive and explosive eruptions from flank and central vents – have been recorded for 2,700 years including both effusive eruptions and explosive eruptions from flank and central vents." There is some repetition here with effusive and explosive eruptions, both in the wording and the linking. I'd remove the second mention of them to keep the working straight: "Etna is one of the most iconic and active volcanoes in the world; its eruptions, including both effusive and explosive eruptions from flank and central vents, have been recorded for 2,700 years.
I've cut the second part of the sentence. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 14:08, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
"Catania had a population of about 27,000 and was the third-largest city of the Kingdom of Naples and Sicily." Link Catania here, as it's the first mention in the body of the text. I would also suggest noting the geographic location of the city in proximity to Etna, something like "Catina, located xx km/m from Etna, had a population of about 27,000..."
Added the link, but the sources mainly discuss the distance of Catania to the vents. Also, a bit of an editorial question about this section: Does it need clarification on the relative role of the Kingdom of Naples-Sicily and the Kingdom of Aragon? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 14:08, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
"...on the 16th, 12th or 1 April, it reached the city walls..." Two things here: First, this is the only time that ordinal numbers are used; every other  date is given as a cardinal number. Second, it seems more logical to start with the earliest date and then list the later ones: 1, 12, or 16 April, for example.
Standardized. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 14:08, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
"The eruption is also known as the Great eruption..." Would it not be "Great Eruption"?
The source only says "Great eruption". Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 14:08, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
"News of the eruption spread to France, Portugal, London, Ireland, and Scotland..." Having one city there (London) while the rest are all countries seems odd; I'd consider changing it to "England".
Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 14:08, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
I also want to note about the citations; they are frequently placed within sentences themselves, and while that is not a major issue, it can be quite distracting to read, and I would suggest moving them to the end of sentences when possible. I also would suggest ordering multiple uses of citations to that the numbering is consistent (so the first numbers go first), but that is more a stylistic issue and not overly important.
My thinking on the mid-sentence citations is that it makes it easier to tell which part of the sentence is based on which source. On the latter, I'll do it. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 14:08, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
In a similar vein, the sources are listed in differing formats: both the "Sfn" and "Cite book/journal/etc" formats are used. Personally I favour the former style, especially when using printed sources, and would suggest formatting everything to be consistent. However again that is a suggestion, and not something I'll hold against the article.
This is an old citation style that I have abandoned now; unless someone wants to go and convert it all it's probably best left alone. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 14:08, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
I'll also note I made a few minor grammatical edits, only in cases where it was quite apparent a simple correction could be made. Nothing major was done.
Overall seems a thorough article, both in coverage and its clarity. Once the few issues above are addressed, I see no reason not to promote. Kaiser matias (talk) 00:21, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
@Kaiser matias: Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 14:08, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
Great, I'm happy with everything. Well done. Kaiser matias (talk) 17:45, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

Bit of an ancient source, but this book may contain useful information. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:57, 19 January 2024 (UTC)