Talk:1883 eruption of Krakatoa

This  level-5 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:Volcanoes Top‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Volcanoes, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of volcanoes, volcanology, igneous petrology, and related subjects on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

Indonesia High‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Indonesia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Indonesia and Indonesia-related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Geology Low‑importance

	Talk:1883 eruption of Krakatoa is part of WikiProject Geology, an attempt at creating a standardized, informative, comprehensive and easy-to-use geology resource. If you would like to participate, you can choose to edit this article, or visit the project page for more information.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Disaster management Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Disaster management, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Disaster management on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Good Article Nomination

Ryan Huang-01 (talk) 04:36, 20 March 2019 (UTC) I was wondering if, after moderate cleanup and more references in the sections, a good article nomination could be made by a major contributor? I am no expert in Wikipedia editing, so please do not overly criticize me if I am absolutely wrong. I was just thinking of this article, and it gave a rather good cover over the topic, including some very useful information comparing it to other eruptions and their amount of deaths. Please help, Ryan — Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}#top|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]])

Please note that ryan has been replied to on his talk page. There is nothing absolutely wrong, it is simply something that take a lot of time and effort. Look at other volcanoes that have GA status - look at other articles about volcanoes in indonesia, and look how much work is required. That takes time and effort. Best of luck. JarrahTree 06:26, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

Section about rp template

In the section Climactic phase a note or reference and in "The Burning Ashes of Ketimbang another example . They seem to lead nowhere and / or are not linked to any reference. I do not have the knowledge to correct this and am loathed to remove. Anyone point me in the right direction please. Edmund Patrick – confer 10:01, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

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

• KrakatoaHV.webm

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 04:22, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

Article issues

This article is listed as B-class but has multiple citation issues including inline "citations needed" tags dated December 2014, December 2018, a "failed verification" dated February 2020, and a section "needs additional citations for verification" dated August 2020.

The criteria (#1) states: The article is suitably referenced, with inline citations. It has reliable sources, and any important or controversial material which is likely to be challenged is cited. Obviously "likely" is surpassed with the tags.

It seems pretty clear that with the long-standing citation issues the article fails to pass the criteria for B-class.Notifying WikiProject Volcanoes and WikiProject Indonesia. -- Otr500 (talk) 02:07, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

Dubious pressure wave figure.

The cited 310 decibel figure is extremely dubious to say the least. The way decibel scales work, every +10dB increase corresponds to a 10x increase in intensity. In the article, a more believable figure is given for the sound level 100 miles from the source (8.5 kPa). If you plug this figure into this calculator https://www.translatorscafe.com/unit-converter/en-US/sound-pressure-level/3-9/millipascal-sound%20pressure%20level%20in%20decibels/ the value is consistent with this article citing 172 dB at the same distance. https://nautil.us/the-sound-so-loud-that-it-circled-the-earth-four-times-2-236014/

If the sound was 172 decibels 100 miles away, this means it was about 192 decibels 10 miles away, or 212 dB 1 mile away. This is probably approaching the practical limit of proximity to the source of the sound as the source was not an infinitesimal point, but a large volume of compressed gas. In order for the pressure wave to reach 310 decibels, all of the sound energy would have had to have been contained within a space about 1/4 inch in diameter, or about 8mm.

The 310 dB figure seems extremely dubious. Fauble2000 (talk) 00:54, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

Dubious claim about bodies

The uncited claim that the remains of victims were found floating at sea months after the eruption is highly improbable. Human remains just don't last that long in water, especially the open sea. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:23, 11 November 2023 (UTC)