Talk:Oruanui eruption

message: The Wikipedia article does not go into much detail (but lacks a "stub" marker); for more information, readers are pointed to a couple of more technical research sites, where it seems the real meat is hidden away behind a paywall.
This is obviously not satisfactory. Recommendations: either flesh out the article, or provide more citations, especially whose content is freely accessible by anyone who has an interest, or of course do both. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 74.104.131.76 (talk) 17:42, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've marked the article as a stub, and labeled the references so as not to imply they are the next step for readers. Two of them require payment, but one is freely accessible. Wikipedia has no policy preferring free sources. -- Avenue 22:36, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citations satisfactory 

message: Hate to be a barbarian, but this article probably reads well for anyone trained or well-read in vulcanology/geology, but is overly technical for most other readers. Many technical terms are used, and some are not defined or linked. The avergae (intelligent) reader, I am afraid, may need the technicalities relegated to a lower section, while an introductory section explains the causes, significance and effects of the eruption in less technical, more prosaic, style. In my humble opinion... --Iacobus (talk) 05:26, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Style caution 

message: The image I added was removed :( with the edit summary: Unencyclopedic picture. Not sure in what way they meant, but to make sure it was accurate I used this page to get an idea of how light colored rhyolite is, and this page to get an idea of where the ash went. Anynobody 01:04, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I think "artist's impressions" like this are hard to do well, and I would be quite cautious about using one here. We have no records from anyone who has seen such a huge eruption, so a lot of it would be guesswork. Problems with yours include the absence of any sign of pyroclastic falls and flows, which are vital here. The ash cloud also seems to missing the target, if I'm following it right. You seem to show the heaviest ashfall going to the south, around Wellington, and the ash missing East Cape and even Hawkes Bay (one of the worst hit areas) entirely. -- Avenue (talk) 01:54, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

text: Yes, the direction seems better now, although the extent of the ash cloud seems very small. There is also still no indication of the huge pyroclastic flows in the central North Island. Some of this was deposited early in the eruptive sequence, while the biggest eruptions (which is what I assume you're trying to show) came towards the end. Another issue is that the eruption occurred during the last ice age, but modern coastlines and vegetation are shown. For instance, the North and South Islands were joined at the time (see Figure 2, Manville & Wilson for details). I'm not saying every little thing needs to be perfect, but I think these are pretty glaring inaccuracies. -- Avenue (talk) 13:09, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Image 

message: I guess this event had dramatic effects on the NZ ecosystem. Would be interesting to get some infos on thats. --Yug (talk) 16:18, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Effect on New zeland's ecosystem ? 

message: Was NZ settled at that time? --Waqqashanafi (talk) 05:42, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Any humans around?