# Talk:Waw an Namus

I removed this sentence as uncited:

Some anthropologists attribute the rise of iron utilization by the Nok Civilization to iron deposits found near the southwestern face of this geologic structure.
It seemed better than slapping {{who?}} on it and leaving it there. — Hex (❝?!❞) 22:42, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

This line "other circumstantial evidence points to a Holocene or even historical formation of the volcano" and the other reference to "historical" in the article is rather confusing. Does it refer to history using the definition distinct from pre-history, i.e. within the past few thousand years? That's not clear from the link, which just goes to the Wikipedia article for history, which uses a different definition. I'd suggest re-writing that line. - Sdkb (talk) 04:23, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

Reworote it a little to make it clearer. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:51, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Waw an Namus/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Bobamnertiopsis (talk · contribs) 17:48, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

Time to put my meager earth science knowledge to good use! I'll take a gander at this one... —Collint c 17:48, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Is it well written?
A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct: 
There are several sentences throughout that might be better phrased or rearranged somewhat. I include them below with suggested rephrasings, additions, or removals. If you disagree with any of these, please let me know.
"Ancient graves have been found at Waw an Namus,[7] the oasis was probably visited by herders and hunters[8] and may have been the source of raw materials,[9] but the place is otherwise uninhabited.[6][10]" → "Ancient graves have been found at Waw an Namus,[7] and while the oasis was probably visited by herders and hunters[8] and may have been the source of raw materials,[9] the place is otherwise uninhabited.[6][10]"
I think I got this. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:56, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
Also, is there a sense of when herders and hunters visited the volcano?
Not really. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:56, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
"Its formation involved the removal of over 800,000,000 cubic metres (2.8×1010 cu ft) of rock." This sentence is not totally clear; does it mean that the eruption(s) that caused the formation of the volcano displaced "over 800,000,000 cubic metres (2.8×1010 cu ft) of rock"?
Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:56, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
"Another crater lies 5 kilometres (3.1 mi) northwest from Waw an Namus,[13] that vent is formed by overlapping craters which feature no volcanic rocks and have produced salty mud; this may be a site of phreatic activity.[10]" → "Another crater lies 5 kilometres (3.1 mi) northwest of Waw an Namus.[13] That vent was formed by overlapping craters which feature no volcanic rocks and which have produced salty mud; this may be [may have been?] a site of phreatic activity.[10]"
Done and added a bit. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:56, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
"The cone is modified by gullies.[16]" → "The cone has been modified by gullies.[16]"
Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:56, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
Are the three lakes unnamed? If so, it may be useful to clarify that in the first sentence of the Lakes section.
I think this might be original research unless there is a source explicitly saying so. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:56, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
"Also within the caldera are three small lakes[1] and additional smaller water bodies,[20] all of which form a semicircle around the northern, eastern and southern flanks of the central cone." → "Also within the caldera are three small lakes[1] and additional smaller water bodies,[20] which together form a semicircle around the northern, eastern and southern flanks of the central cone."
Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:56, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
I think logically, the statements in these sentences could be rearranged: "These lakes cover a total surface of 0.3 square kilometres (0.12 sq mi) and the water surface reaches 434 metres (1,424 ft) elevation, but with seasonal variations[20] which cause some of the lakebodies to dry up at times.[6] The largest lake has a surface area of 0.146 square kilometres (0.056 sq mi) with a depth of 12.5 metres (41 ft), [21] while the deepest of these waterbodies reaches depths of 15–16 metres (49–52 ft).[22]" → "These lakes cover a total surface of 0.3 square kilometres (0.12 sq mi); the largest has a surface area of 0.146 square kilometres (0.056 sq mi) and a depth of 12.5 metres (41 ft), [21] while the deepest of these waterbodies reaches depths of 15–16 metres (49–52 ft).[22] The water surface reaches an elevation of 434 metres (1,424 ft) [above sea level, right?], although seasonal variations[20] sometimes cause the lakebodies to dry up.[6]"
Implemented. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:03, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
"Freshwater springs nourish[6] at least one freshwater body[12] and the other warm, saline lakes.[2]" The implication here is that one lake is freshwater and the other two (and the smaller bodies of water) are all saline, right? You might try "Of the lakes, all are saline except one [which one, if it is known?] which is nourished by a freshwater spring."
Irritatingly, the sources do not agree on the salinity; Bardintzeff 2012 speaks of three salt lakes while Richter 1951 speaks of four salt lakes and one sweetwater lake. Should we go simply with the most recent source, or...? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:03, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
That is irritating! My personal feeling on this is to be transparent about the sources disagreeing in a footnote, saying essentially what you've just said here and within the body of the article, defer to the most recent reliable source (Bardintzeff 2012 I guess). Does that work for you? —Collint c 00:36, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
Added this clarification. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:56, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
In this sentence, would it be possible to clarify what is meant by "recent", and also, if known, which isotope ratio was analyzed? "Isotope ratio analysis indicates that the water at Waw an Namus is recent water."
Expanded this a little. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:03, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
"Waw an Namus is an isolated volcano; farther north lie lava flows of basaltic composition and the Haruj volcanic field,[1] about 70 kilometres (43 mi) distant;[14] sometimes Waw an Namus is considered to be part of Haruj." → "Waw an Namus is an isolated volcano. About 70 kilometres (43 mi) north lie lava flows of basaltic composition and the Haruj volcanic field, of which Waw an Namus is sometimes considered to be a part."
Modified. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:03, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
"and the occurrence of foidite have been reported." → "and the occurrence of foidite has been reported."
Remedied. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:03, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
"smaller reeds and tamarisks grow around the saline lake as well" Is there one saline lake or multiple?
See above re the lakes sentence. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:03, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
"Animal life includes aquatic birds, flies and mosquitoes,[34] among the birds are the ducks Anas clypeata (Northern shoveler), Anas crecca (Eurasian teal), Anas strepera (Gadwall),[35] as well as..." → "Animal life includes aquatic birds, flies and mosquitoes.[34] Among the birds are the ducks Anas clypeata (Northern shoveler), Anas crecca (Eurasian teal), Anas strepera (Gadwall),[35] as well as..."
Needs a re-check. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:03, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
All common animal names should be placed in lowercase, except those with proper words in them (so Red-throated pipit → red-throated pipit, Lanner falcon → lanner falcon, but Eurasian coot is fine as is, etc.)
Are you sure that these names are put in lowercase? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:03, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
The relevant guideline is at MOS:COMMONNAMES: "Lower-case initial letters are used for each part of the common (vernacular) names of species, genera, families and all other taxonomic levels (bacteria, zebra, bottlenose dolphin, mountain maple, bald eagle), except where they contain a proper name (Przewalski's horse, Amur tiger, Roosevelt elk), or when such a name starts a sentence (Black bears eat white suckers and blueberries)." I don't think that changing this is actually necessary to fulfilling the GA criteria so it's up to you whether you want to implement it or not right now. —Collint c 21:23, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
Is it necessary to say "The oasis has a rich bird life" after listing all these birds? Or could it be said before listing all the bird species?
Moved this up. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:03, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation: 
An elevation of "470 m (1,540 ft)" is listed in the infobox but not in the body of the article; this should be incorporated somewhere. Likewise, the Pleistocene is named in the lead but not mentioned elsewhere in the body and should be tied in with the appropriate time before present in the body below.
Yanked elevation for the reason given in the edit summary, added a bit about Pleistocene. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:03, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
Hmm, now you have an elevation of "547 metres (1,795 ft)" in the infobox; is this the highest point of the volcano above sea level? Can this be started somewhere in the body of the article and cited to a source? —Collint c 01:00, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
Resolved below. —Collint c 19:25, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
Is it verifiable with no original research?
A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline: 
A strong collection of sources all cited in a consistent format make for a strong list of references in this article.
B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines: 
A sources appear reliable (lots of academic journals and governmental sources) and a spotcheck of sources reveals that what is written in the article is cited in the sources as listed.
C. It contains no original research: 
Meticulously cited throughout.
D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism: 
No copyright violations detected with Earwig's tool, and none noted while reading through sources.
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic: 
The article covers everything the reader might want to know about this volcano.
B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style): 
The Biology section probably does not need to list every species of diatom found at the site; a suitable rephrasing might be "Individual species are the cyanophyceae Anabaena variabilis, Eucapsis alpina, Microcoleus steenstrupii[39] and Pseudoanabaena africana[40] as well as species of diatoms from the genera Amphora, Nitzschia, Rhopalodia, and others."
Moved that giant list of microbes into a footnote; IMO it's reasonable to assume that most readers will find a list of bird species much more interesting than a list of microbes. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:03, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
I think you've found a great solution to this. —Collint c 00:26, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
Is it neutral?
It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each: 
No neutrality problems here, although the article tackles an admittedly uncontroversial topic.
Is it stable?
It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute: 
Stable throughout its life, the article has had only one primary editor in the last year or so with no contentious editing.
Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content: 
All images on page are CC-0, CC-BY, or CC-BY-SA and hosted on Commons. Images were spotchecked with none appearing to have been posted outside of Wikimedia first.
B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions: 
Great images throughout the article, arranged and captioned. All include alt text as well (NICE WORK!)
Overall:
Pass or Fail: 
Overall, very close! A few small things to fix but this article is quite close to GA status. Thanks for writing about obscure volcanoes--they're thrilling to learn about! I'll leave this open for ten days, until September 28; please let me know if you'll need any more time to address the aforementioned comments! —Collint c 19:22, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
Bobamnertiopsis I've implemented some fixes, asked about others, will complete the work tomorrow. Thanks for the review. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:03, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
Awesome work, Jo-Jo Eumerus! I've responded where relevant above. Thanks for your quick attention to this! Looking forward to continuing to improve this article! —Collint c 01:00, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
Bobamnertiopsis I think I got this all now. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:56, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
Everything looks good except 2B; you changed the elevation data but I'm still not sure where you're getting the new number you have in the infobox as it doesn't appear to be in the article either. —Collint c 15:36, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
Bobamnertiopsis Ah, that came from Wikidata. Zapped it. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:05, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
Jo-Jo Eumerus, the Global Volcanism Project site lists a peak elevation of 470 m. If this is a trustworthy source (and it seems like it is), this might be good info to incorporate into the body + infobox of the article. —Collint c 17:02, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
Bobamnertiopsis Yes, but GVP does not actually explain what it is a height of. Caldera rim? Crater? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 18:44, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
Jo-Jo Eumerus, we know from the article that the caldera is 100 m deep and the cone is 140 m high, so the top of the cone is 40 m higher than the rim of the caldera, right? With that in mind, I don't think it's a reach to interpret "peak elevation" as being the highest point in the whole complex, in this case the peak of the cone. If the caldera rim were higher than the top of the cone, that might be a more complicated situation but luckily that is not the case here. Do you think this is a fair interpretation? —Collint c 19:05, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
It's a fair interpretation but probably also WP:SYNTH. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:06, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
Yeah, that's fair. Also, a glance at the OpenStreetMap elevation layer reveals slightly different numbers and also suggests that part of the caldera's rim on the western side is slightly higher than the peak of the cone. So you're right, best leave it as is. With that dealt with, this article satisfies GA criteria and I'm happy to PASS it! Congrats! —Collint c 19:25, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

When did the volcano collapse? forming the caldera?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:199:4300:3208:69FE:ABD6:1EB:EA12 (talk) 21:53, 24 June 2019 (UTC) 

We don't know this exactly. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 07:41, 25 June 2019 (UTC)