# Talk:Cumbre Vieja tsunami hazard

This review is transcluded from Talk:Cumbre Vieja tsunami hazard/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Destroyeraa (talk· contribs) 16:11, 21 September 2020 (UTC)


### Lede
For the first sentence, add volcanic before La Palma, since you go on to compare this to other volcanic islands.
"volcanic La Palma" implies that there is such a thing as non-volcanic La Palma. There isn't, so I wouldn't use that term. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 18:41, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
@Jo-Jo Eumerus: I mean add volcanic before island. ~ Destroyeraa🌀 18:58, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
Don't use informal language like "gigantic". Use words like "extensive" or "large".
Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 18:41, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
How rare are landslides in the Atlantic Ocean? You only compare this to Pacific islands.
Sources don't say. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 18:41, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
Who is Ward and Day? It will be helpful if you link it.
The authors of the publication that kicked off the whole hypothesis. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 18:41, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
I suggest you either link Ward and Day or explain with a few words what Ward and Day is. For example, Ward and Day, scientists of the University of California, ... ~ Destroyeraa🌀 19:25, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
Expanded this a bit. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:13, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
Since this article is only about Cumbre Vieja, the last sentence - "Other volcanoes across the world are also at risk of causing such tsunamis." is unnecessary unless you wish to write an article about all the tsunami threats around the world.
That's mostly additional info. The Cumbre Vieja hypothesis has informed research on similar dangers elsewhere. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 18:41, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
You need to incorporate what you just said into the article. You need to say in the lede how the the Cumbre Veija research affected research of other volcanoes. ~ Destroyeraa🌀 19:25, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
Hrmm. It doesn't seem like many sources are explicitly saying so. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:13, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
Then I don't get why you are including so many examples of other volcanoes/earthquakes and tsunami threats if they don't (in some way) relate to this article and this subject. ~ Destroyeraa🌀 15:51, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
They aren't that many examples, actually. Just these where sources are discussing them and Cumbre Vieja in the same context, really. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:10, 22 September 2020 (UTC)


### Sector collapses and tsunamis caused by them
In this section, you mainly explained about Volcano collapses and tsunamis caused by them. However, you didn't mention much about Cumbre Vieja except in the second paragraph. You go on to list a bunch of earthquakes and tsunamis around the world. Remember what the title of the article is - Cumbre Vieja tsunami hazard. You may want to shorten this section so you don't take away much from the subject.
Well, the article is principally about the hypothesis of a tsunami, so giving a bit more consideration to that aspect is warranted. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 18:41, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
OK. Carrying on...

"Volcanoes grow in size and thus tend to eventually become unstable and collapse, generating landslides." Remove "tend to". The sentence feels weird to read with those words.
Removed. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:26, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
"In the Hawaiian Islands, collapses with volumes of over 5,000 cubic kilometres (1,200 cu mi) have been identified." Is this really necessary, since this statistics seems trivial and doesn't relate to Cumbre Vieja or the Canary Islands.
I don't agree. It's a comparator/contextual information and 5000 cubic kilometres is the largest such landslide known. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:26, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
"Appear to be the norm" - informal language.
Changed, but I am not sure if the more formal language is better. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:26, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
Agadir Basin - red link.
Not a problem IMO. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:26, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
"and was later re-dated to have occurred between 87,000±8,000 and 39,000±13,000 years ago." I suggest you add a note to what 87,000±8,000 and 39,000±13,000 mean, since some people do not know what they mean.
I think it's clear enough that they bracket a timespan. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:26, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
@Jo-Jo Eumerus: Still, IMO a note won't hurt anyone. ~ Destroyeraa🌀 16:17, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
@Destroyeraa:Just a note, editing a ping into an already existing post doesn't work. I am not sure how to make the text any clearer about the fact that it's about a timespan. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:32, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
@Jo-Jo Eumerus: Add a note explaining what 87,000±8,000 means. ~ Destroyeraa🌀 16:34, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
Added one but I am dubious about its usefulness. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 18:02, 30 September 2020 (UTC)


#### Tsunami hazards
I am a bit confused of what might generate the landslide, which will in turn generate the tsunami. You list both volcanoes and earthquakes. Is it both, or is it just one.
Both can do it. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 18:02, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
You might want to fit this section with the "Potential impacts" section, since both talk about tsunami hazards. Especially the second paragraph in this subsection.
I don't think that would make sense, as neither section goes into detail of what the impact of a tsunami on land is. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 18:02, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
You do say what some of the hazards say in the second paragraph. I still highly suggest you merge some of the paragraphs with the Potential Impacts section. ~ Destroyeraa🌀 21:14, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
I still don't think that works, it's too generic for the Impacts section. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:25, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
Overall nothing much that needs fixing (grammar, etc.) in this subsection.


### Regional Context: Cumbre Vieja and the Atlantic Ocean
"It is the fastest growing volcano in the archipelago and thus dangerous in terms of collapses and landslides." Why is it dangerous?
Fast-growing volcanoes tend to become top-heavy and unstable. Sources do not spell this out, seems like. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 18:41, 21 September 2020 (UTC)


### Models
#### Ward and Day
"In light of the behaviour of other documented sector collapses such as at Mount St. Helens, the headscarp of the unstable part of Cumbre Vieja is likely 2–3 kilometres (1.2–1.9 mi) east from the 1949 fault and the toe of the sector lies at 1–3 kilometres (0.62–1.86 mi) depth below sea level; this latter reconstruction is supported by bathymetric observations west of La Palma." This sentence is rather long, I suggest you remove "such as Mount St. Helens," to improve the flow of the sentence.
Split. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 21:10, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
What does "566,000 Cumbre Nueva landslide" mean?
Specified. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 21:10, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
A scenario of a collapse of 500 cubic kilometres (120 cu mi) that moves at a rate of about 100 metres per second (330 ft/s) on top of a layer of mud or landslide breccia, which lubricate its movement, and eventually spreads 60 kilometres (37 mi) to cover a jug-shaped area of 3,500 square kilometres (1,400 sq mi)... doesn't sound like a complete sentence.
Yeah, amended. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 21:10, 14 October 2020 (UTC)


#### Other models
Link hydrodynamic. If there is a subject on hydrodynamic modelling, please link it.
Linked but I think it's going to be a redlink. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 21:10, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
So another model was produced by Ward and Day in 2006?
Yes, but only for a narrow area along the US coast. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 21:10, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
Overall, this section is well written


### Criticism
#### Probability
"Humanity has never witnessed gigantic collapses on La Palma" Again, too dramatic wording.
Is there an alternative formulation?
How about vast, extensive, expansive, or enormous. ~ Destroyeraa🌀 22:28, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
@Destroyeraa:Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:57, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
@Jo-Jo Eumerus: Good. However, you still have Potential impacts to consider. ~ Destroyeraa🌀 12:34, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
I admit that I am not sure what you mean... Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:42, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
@Jo-Jo Eumerus: I mean that you need to expand the section, if there are reliable sources available. Currently, it is a little too short. Otherwise, consider merging the potential impacts section with the tsunami hazards section, since the tsunami hazards section needs more context about Cumbre Vieja. ~ Destroyeraa🌀 16:36, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
Oh, that issue. Of the rigorous academic sources, very few discuss the impact such a tsunami would have, to my surprise. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 19:15, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
"and there is evidence that the western flank of La Palma is currently stable and a collapse in the near future unlikely." I would replace the "and" after "stable" with a "thus", since it is stable, a collapse isn't likely.
I don't think that works, as I am not sure that the second statement is based on the first. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 21:10, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
"extreme credible worst casescenario" Space.
Corrected. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 21:10, 14 October 2020 (UTC)


### Potential impact
I suggest you merge these short paragraphs with the "Tsunami hazards" subsection, since the tsunami hazards section needs more relation to the subject, which is Cumbre Vieja. Currently, this section is a bit too short. 


### Other volcanoes with such threats
Remember, this is about the threat to Cumbre Vieja, if you want to turn this into a "see also" section, there needs to be links to the other tsunami hazard pages.

There aren't such articles, this is more a contextual section. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 21:10, 14 October 2020 (UTC)


### References
References look good.


### Overall
Overall, a well-written article that is very close to GA class, though some parts may be confusing to the reader. I'm sorry for taking so long on this review, Jo-Jo Eumerus. ~ Destroyeraa🌀 19:48, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

@Jo-Jo Eumerus: Very well. I'm rather surprised the models have little information about the actual impact, though if you find more information, I'm sure you'll add it. Thanks, and good job. ~ Destroyeraa🌀 00:28, 22 October 2020 (UTC)


### Other volcanoes with such threats
Remember the point of this article. It is to explain about the Cumbre Vieja tsunami hazard. A simple "See also" section will do.
I don't think there are many articles about such threats elsewhere. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 18:41, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
Overall, it is a bit unclear what this article is about. Is it to list and explain the different tsunami hazards in the world, or is it to explain the Cumbre Vieja tsunami hazard? If the subject is the former, then the article needs to be moved accordingly to the correct title and be less about the Cumbre Vieja. If the subject is the latter, then it needs to be clearer to the reader that the subject is the Cumbre Vieja volcano and threat. 

The article is principally about Cumbre Vieja; some of the other information is mostly context. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 18:41, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

Is this a good source? The title is a little worrisome (Chicxulub is probably not the largest asteroid to hit Earth, the one that created the Vredefort crater would be and of course Theia). Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 20:18, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

@Jo-Jo Eumerus: I still don't understand how asteroids have to do with Cumbre Vieja. ~ Destroyeraa🌀 13:41, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
Little, but the source discusses the tsunami because it is about non-earthquake tsunamis. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:49, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Santo Antao, Sentinel-2.png
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 22:48, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Please look for scientific journals analyzing any evidence for tsunami deposits of the coast of SC, USA for example—or lack thereof. 142.116.123.215 (talk) 01:03, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

I didn't find any source that explicitly linked any tsunami deposit there to Cumbre Vieja or other Canary Islands volcanoes. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:19, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

So, I know that this page doesn't have a lot of watchers but I'd like to have some discussion about whether the article gives too much weight to the worst-case scenarios. I've rewritten the lead a little to emphasize how unlikely a tsunami is but I don't know if it's enough.  The problem I think is that much of the risk discussion takes place via blogs and social media (which aren't good sources) and it often assumes that we all live in the USA (i.e it disregards the impact a collapse could have on the Canary Islands). Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:20, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

I think an additional illustration with a location map showing where in the Altantic Ocean La Palma/Canary Island is located might be useful for readers who might not know where the Canary Islands are located as well as giving readers an idea of the impact.
The article itself doesn't explain where it's located and relevant location maps are currently found only on the La Palma and Canary Islands articles (I personally prefer the one on the Canary Islands article).
I'd add one myself, but I have no idea on how to add a location map.
--193.183.211.65 (talk) 12:38, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

I've added one, but it doesn't work properly. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 13:24, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
Thank you! 193.183.211.65 (talk) 16:04, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

So, this edit with the summary The referenced paper doesn't mention Coimbra, which is not a coastal town, so it has a very low probability of being affected by the tsunami. The paper, however, mentions Porto, which is a coastal city.. Now, from reading the source it actually says Coimbra, but I don't know whether to revert because that's not a coastal city. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 11:51, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

I can't speak Portuguese, but this source may be appropriate to use here. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:26, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

doi:10.1016/j.ijdrr.2023.103694 might be worth mentioning in re social media during the 2021 eruption. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:55, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

@Dora the Axe-plorer: and @Lojwe: Let's not edit war about these. I see right away that these additions don't use the citation style in the rest of the article. I kinda think that they also give undue weight to these works by going into too much detail that isn't really relevant here. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 14:41, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

Imo a pop culture section is fine but besides La Palma, i dont believe the first two are notable either. I stand by justifying my earlier reverts for using unreliable sources. They impacted the GA status. Dora the Axe-plorer (explore) 20:01, 19 February 2025 (UTC)
Also, I am quite iffy on this addition: "The Volcanological Institute of the Canary Islands has pointed out on several occasions that the probability of this happening is very low: "this hypothesis has been refuted and discarded" by "numerous researchers", as a large eruption would have to occur simultaneously with an earthquake of a magnitude well above the average: "Cumbre Vieja is stable, even under the effects of eruptions similar to those that have occurred in the last tens of thousands of years". The US Geological Survey has also made the same statement." One, I think this kind of stuff needs to be put into the criticism section, with only a summary in the lead - where the improbability is already mentioned so it's not clear we need yet another paragraph. Two, we are once again using a different citation format from the rest of the article, and I am not sure that news articles are good sources here - folks might be tempted to add other more sensationalist sources if given the precedent. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:19, 21 February 2025 (UTC)
The Volcanological Institute of the Canary Islands is the main institution in charge of studying the volcanos and their associated phenomena in the Canary Islands. These aren’t just “news articles”. The first two are one of the main fact-checking institutions in Spain, VerificaRTVE and Maldita.es, the first one onwed by the Spanish public network RTVE, they aren’t tabloids. I think it is sensationalist for this article not to include in the first paragraph what the main local institution in charge of the study of volcanoes in the Canary Islands says, which considerably lowers the probability of this theory, that’s why I added it. Also, what’s the problem with using a different citation format from the rest of the article? What is important is what references they are and what they say, not their format. Perhaps this debate is because they are in Spanish? It is not so difficult to do the exercise of checking them, within the same browser there are options to read them in English. Lojwe (talk) 22:46, 21 February 2025 (UTC)
Well, WP:CITEVAR does encourage people to use one citation style and WP:LEADCITE discourages putting citations in the lead. And MOS:LEADNO discourages putting content in the lead that isn't in the rest of the article, too. I was thinking that citing the volcanological institute directly would be better ... but for some reason I can't find any mentions of tsunami in its domain. Is it not indexed on Google or what? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 14:22, 22 February 2025 (UTC)
Sorry, I'm not familiar with the English Wikipedia recommendations, I'm a regular on the Spanish one. Perhaps you could help me adapt it to the rules of this Wikipedia. I was trying to find the reference for the Volcanological Institute of the Canary Islands. RTVE links to them on Facebook, where they released a press note, as does the website of the Government of the Canary Islands. Lojwe (talk) 07:22, 23 February 2025 (UTC)
I would probably delete the paragraph in the lead and expand the "this event is improbable" paragraph there. Then add the information from these two sources to the criticism section - that one needs expansion. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:49, 23 February 2025 (UTC)
Okay, I’m ok with it as long as you don’t delete it, you can adapt it to comply with those recommendations. Lojwe (talk) 23:02, 23 February 2025 (UTC)
I dealt with some additions and sources. I think the important point is that only about one eruption out of 1,000-10,000 causes a landslide ... assuming that landslides only occur during eruptions, which isn't certain. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:27, 24 February 2025 (UTC)
@Lojwe: Regarding this addition - putting aside for a moment that the eruption is over and the island didn't collapse so we don't need to calm people anymore, that addition does not fit into the paragraph. It has a completely different tone and structure and talks about a different thing than the surrounding text. In other words, it's poorly written. And to be honest, I question its factual accuracy - the scientific literature on giant collapses is fairly divided on whether eruptions or earthquakes or weather events cause landslides, but as far as I know there isn't good evidence that eruptions are needed to start a landslide. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:34, 25 February 2025 (UTC)
Ok, adapt it the way you prefer, rewrite it, place it wherever you prefer, etc but don’t delete the info. Lojwe (talk) 12:24, 25 February 2025 (UTC)
I took out most of the details and left the part about the risk being very low. Left it unattributed, too, because the risk is indeed very low as demonstrated by the fact that the island didn't collapse. I wonder, should "the eruption did not cause any detectable destabilization of the island" be added somewhere? Is it already there? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:58, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

With respect to these edits, it seems like in many instances the sources don't actually support the article text that was added and don't follow the established article style and we don't need entire paragraphs discussing risks. Also, I don't think Etna is commonly cited as a volcano at risk of a sector collapse. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:27, 23 November 2025 (UTC)