Talk:2018 Volcán de Fuego eruption

El Rodeo

There 2 towns in Guatemala called El Rodeo. I just created a stub on the one that got buried by volcanic material: El Rodeo, Escuintla‎ (population ~14,125). I did not add it yet to this article for respect to the "work in progress" template. Cheers, Rowan Forest (talk) 19:53, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

{{geodata-check}}

The following coordinate fixes are needed for

—103.230.107.39 (talk) 08:28, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

You haven't explained in what way the article's coordinates are erroneous, and they appear to be correct (they match those in the Volcán de Fuego article). If you still think that there is an error, you'll need to provide a clear explanation of the problem. Deor (talk) 14:45, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

Wikiprojects removal

Jim Michael for some reason decided to remove Wikiprojects Latin America and Central America from this article. His rationale is that this happened in Guatemala and "if a disaster affected Italy only it wouldn't be in the Europe & EU projects". The question is if all things pertaining to individual countries are removed from the scope of those two projects then they would simply have no articles to work on. Wikiproject Latin America scope: "This WikiProject is an attempt to improve and expand the articles about topics related to Latin America." Volcán de Fuego is clearly a topic related to Latin America as well as to Central America so those two wikiprojects should be restored. Thinker78 (talk) 08:40, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

Surely the projects with broader scope are for events, organisations etc. which involve multiple countries within their scope. Things limited to one country are usually in that country's project rather than that of a continent or group of countries. Jim Michael (talk) 09:01, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

I disagree with you. Tbh I don't think you should remove those banners if you are not even a collaborator in those wikiprojects. Volcán de Fuego: 10 of the most dangerous volcanoes in Latin America, Quote from CNN article: "Volcan de Fuego... is one of Central America's most active." Thinker78 (talk) 22:17, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

Population

The casualties are likely to rise dramatically: [1] La búsqueda continúa centrada en cuatro aldeas: El Rodeo, La Reina, la Libertad y San Miguel Los Lotes, donde ni siquiera se sabe cuánta gente habitaba pero que podría rondar las 40.000 personas. Translation: The search continues and it is focused on four villages: El Rodeo, La Reina, la Libertad y San Miguel Los Lotes, where it is unknown their population, but it is estimated at 40,000."

I will not add this to the article until we find additional supporting references. Rowan Forest (talk) 23:48, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

Quality assessment

I changed the assessment to B. I read several times the criteria of quality assessments and I believe this article meets all the criteria for B class. WP:ASSESS: "The quality assessments are mainly performed by members of WikiProjects". If you have any concerns please discuss. Thinker78 (talk) 20:21, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Simon Burchell is pretty good at assessing articles from the region – mind taking a look? –FlyingAce^✈hello 22:42, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

An article this short and covering an ongoing event really can't be classified as B Class. SounderBruce 02:38, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

FlyingAce, I don't mind and even if I minded it wouldn't matter because he is a member of both projects. Thinker78 (talk) 08:21, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

SounderBruce, the criteria for B class does not mention length of article or ongoing coverage, just proportion of material (not proportion of length), reasonable coverage, omissions and inaccuracies. It does indicate that a B class article may need expansion. Thinker78 (talk) 08:21, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

I've reassesssed, and will explain my thinking. I've dropped the importance for both WikiProject Guatemala and WikiProject Central America - the erruption had a regional effect within Guatemala, with its most severe consequences strictly local. It had effectively no wider impact on Central America at all, and although absolutely devestating on a local scale, it had no lasting impact upon Guatemala's infrastructure, Guatemala City airport reopened quite quickly, and I'm not aware of major highways being closed for any length of time. The Guatemala importance can be re-evaluated a year or two down the line when any national impact is clearer. I rate it has C class, because there is no detailed description of the volcano and factors leading up to the erruption, and no supporting materials - diagrams, or even photos, beyond a basic map of its location. There is no discussion of the volcano's place in the volcanic chain, plate tectonics and other relevant information. Regards, Simon Burchell (talk) 16:35, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

What importance scale did you use? Please link. I used the Importance scheme. Regarding the class, I agree with you that the article is missing the information you highlight although the necessity of its inclusion is highly subjective because you can read the Volcán de Fuego article for further information. Photos are not required for a B class if I understand the criteria correctly ("Illustrations are encouraged, though not required"). Thinker78 (talk) 22:43, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

Hi, all assessments are subjective. As a rule of thumb for project importance: A high/top importance Central America article should directly affect the whole of Central America. For A high/top importance Guatemala article should affect the whole of Guatemala in some way (physically, legally, culturally etc). If the article is regional in scope (affecting only a limited part of Central America/Guatemala depending on project) then I will give it a mid-importance rating. In this case, it is doubtful that the article falls within the scope of the Central America wikiproject, which prefers articles covering more than one nation within Central America. A decent comparison here is the 1976 Guatemala earthquake, which is rated High importance for WikiProject Guatemala - but the earthquake had a significant impact upon national infrastructure, killed 23000 people, and injured about 3 times that many. The scale of the disaster was wholly different. With regard to the B-class criteria, two things influenced me to rate this as C-class:

• The article contains supporting materials where appropriate. Illustrations are encouraged, though not required. Diagrams and an infobox etc. should be included where they are relevant and useful to the content. - supporting materials are appropriate for decent coverage - a local map showing the villages and area of the flow, for example; or of the volcano crater, and where the eruption originated.
• The article reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain obvious omissions or inaccuracies. I think a B-class article should at least mention the volcanic chain and the major tectonic activity producing it, if only briefly.

In the end, all articles are assessed as stand-alone articles, independent of whether they link to further information. All the best, Simon Burchell (talk) 09:43, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

You said it is doubtful that it belongs to Wikiproject Central America. But Volcán de Fuego is one of the most active in Central America. Thinker78 (talk) 06:48, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

Yes it is, but a while ago there was a purge of articles falling within the scope of national WikiProjects: for example, an article on the volcanic chain would fall within WP:Central America, since the chain crosses various countries, but a volcano falling within just one country within Central America would fall within the project related to that country (WP:GUATEMALA in this case), unless of course the devestation was such that it affected various Central American countries. Simon Burchell (talk) 14:24, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Mixed Tense in Article

It says "It is the most deadly ... and has killed" and also says "... begun". This seems inappropriate. Theanswertolifetheuniverseandeverything (talk) 15:41, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Deadliest since....

Two choices presented:

1. It is the deadliest eruption in the country since the Santiaguito dome collapse of 1929 which killed hundreds.
2. It is Guatemala's deadliest volcanic eruption since the Santa María eruption of 1902.

Which one is it? Rowan Forest (talk) 19:11, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

I think it is the first -verified by sources. There is also a blog of the American Geophysical Union talking about it. Probably the guys at the BBC missed the Santiaguito event in their research. No one is perfect. Thinker78 (talk) 06:53, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

References

Missing people: Delete 2,000 statement

The article currently states: "[…]local residents estimate that approximately 2,000 people are buried". This is one order of magnitude less than the official number of ~200. So we have a speculation from a resident the vs. the official tally. I request we delete the speculation of 2,000 missing/dead/buried. Rowan Forest (talk) 22:31, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

I think it should be kept because it is important information to know what locals believe is the true number of dead as opposed to official figures only. Besides, it is not a speculation of one person but of locals who lived in the area. Thinker78 (talk) 03:31, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

November eruption shouldn't be included

This article is about specifically the 3 June 2018 eruption, not about all eruptions of 2018, nor other eruptions in 2018 nor those of any other year. I think the November eruption shouldn't be included in this article. If anything, create another article with a list of Volcán de Fuego eruptions, because it will keep erupting. --Thinker78 (talk) 04:18, 21 November 2018 (UTC)