Talk:Tocomar

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Kingsif (talk · contribs) 15:27, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

Hi, I'm Kingsif, and I'll be doing this review. This is an automated message that helps keep the bot updating the nominated article's talkpage working and allows me to say hi. Feel free to reach out and, if you think the review has gone well, I have some open GA nominations that you could (but are under no obligation to) look at. Kingsif (talk) 15:27, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

Good Article review progress box Criteria: 1a. prose () 1b. MoS () 2a. ref layout () 2b. cites WP:RS () 2c. no WP:OR () 2d. no WP:CV () 3a. broadness () 3b. focus () 4. neutral () 5. stable () 6a. free or tagged images () 6b. pics relevant () Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked are unassessed

• Copyvio check seems fine, and Spanish language checked. Mostly just proper nouns showing.
• Sources all seem good, perhaps too much ALLCAPS in some, and reliable; sufficient in-line citations

  Decapped some stuff. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 11:42, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

• Can the coordinates in the infobox be fixed?

  Let's see if the fix works. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 11:42, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

• Infobox could be expanded in general, an image of the volcano and a map of South America could be beneficial, plus any other details

  I don't think there are any free images of the volcano. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 11:42, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

• History looks fine and stable
• The lead doesn't flow very well, it's a lot of simple statements and doesn't engage a reader. But it's a good length with good coverage.

  Did some minor changes there. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 11:42, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

• I don't know if National Route 51 needs "the" before it

  Removed it. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 11:42, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

• The second half of the second geography paragraph is about the Central Volcanic Zone, not Tocomar, and doesn't seem relevant enough to include. (Text: Among the volcanoes of the Central Volcanic Zone is Ojos del Salado, the highest volcano in the world.[11] The largest historical eruption of the Andes took place in the Central Volcanic Zone, in 1600 when Huaynaputina erupted in Peru. This eruption reached class 6 in the volcanic explosivity index and caused 1500 direct fatalities and likely global climate effects.[12] Presently, Lascar in Chile is the most active volcano of the Central Volcanic Zone)

  See, when I write articles on volcanoes I usually include some contextual information about the topic. I've moved it down into the Geology section, though, and split that one into two subsections. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 11:42, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

  @Jo-Jo Eumerus: I do like context. It's better, but it still reads like zooming in then zooming out every few paragraphs. I don't know if there are similar volcano Good Articles to refer to - is this common among them? Kingsif (talk) 17:14, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

  There are other volcano GAs, mine are listed here. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 18:27, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

  (Some very nice articles there) Obviously ignoring the difference in coverage, given available sources, perhaps the main difference is how those paragraphs start with "X Volcano is in Y formation, where Z happens" - to match/resolve, simply adding Tocomar before some of the context could help? Kingsif (talk) 19:51, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

• Perhaps the start of the Geology section could better relate to Tocomar
  • Hmm, better focus needed in Geology parts in general - this could be by integrating some of the background into details of Tocomar, putting it first.
    • I was thinking of doing that for the "Local" section but it would yerk the flow of the text more than a bit. I am not sure how to do this. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:43, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
      • @Jo-Jo Eumerus: I generally have faith in your abilities, so I think I will come back and read it maybe tomorrow, and see what I think with fresher eyes - it's not bad, and I'll probably see it better without the review on my mind. Is that alright? Kingsif (talk) 16:10, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
        • Sure. I'll admit that this is far from one of my best efforts. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:41, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
          • @Jo-Jo Eumerus: Okay, re-reading it now, the Local part seems fine. In fact, the only part that's still troubling me is the Regional, which starts with a paragraph that isn't tied into the subject, even at the end or really in the next paragraph - and it jumps right into using jargon and names for unfamiliar things without context, so I feel it could be generalized or rewritten still (to the uninitiated, it probably cannot be understood and doesn't appear relevant until more of the article is read). Kingsif (talk) 02:41, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
            • @Kingsif:Now see, I was thinking that it was a good way to introduce from the general (volcanism in South America) to the more local (volcanism at Tocomar). I am not sure how to mend this. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:00, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

@Jo-Jo Eumerus: Perhaps the first issue is that it is that short overview, but this means it assumes some knowledge on volcanism that the reader may not have. Can this be tackled before looking at structure? Kingsif (talk) 19:23, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

I don't think this can be done w/o breaking the flow. I'll admit also that I am a little unsure about which knowledge we are talking about. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 19:28, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Do you mind if I open this for a second opinion to see what others think on this, then? Kingsif (talk) 20:02, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

I don't object. Perhaps someone else will find a way to formulate it, anyhow. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 20:21, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

• The rest looks good

Overall

•  On hold some focus concerns Kingsif (talk) 20:09, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

Comments from CaroleHenson

• I agree that there is a focus issue with the Geology section. I understand the desire to provide background information, but it gets tedious.
• My approach would be to either:

• Create a background section within Geology.
• Or, put the background type info into notes. If there's not a good place to hang a note, it probably doesn't belong in the article.

• I think that the "regional" section could make that "background" section, so I've renamed it. I am not sure if that satisfies the concerns, though. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:41, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

• There is this paragraph Tocomar has been investigated for the potential to generate geothermal power.[21] Conditions would be favourable in the area as there are mines and towns that could use the electricity in the area, as well as a major power line between Chile and Argentina.[13] However, exploration of the Tocomar-Cerro Tuzgle area ceased after a few wells were drilled and ended up being unproductive.[22] that I found frustrating. It would seem to me to be better to say Tocomar has been investigated for the potential to generate geothermal power.[21] However, exploration of the Tocomar-Cerro Tuzgle area ceased after a few wells were drilled and ended up being unproductive.[22]

  I think that makes for a good note material; I've moved it to a note. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:41, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

• There is actually a lot of good information in the article, but it will not be able to be read by a number of Wikipedia readers, I am afraid. It is very technical. (I was able to follow it, but sometimes my brain would have to do a deep search.)
• I do not have a geology background, but I thought that I could weigh in regarding focus and readability. I hope this helps.–CaroleHenson (talk) 03:55, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

  Did some changes, but I am not sure if they are enough; @CaroleHenson and Kingsif: Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:41, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

• @Jo-Jo Eumerus: It's certainly improved, and though more changes would make it better, I am comfortably passing this as a good article now - I think the prose can be understood by a general reader (well, I can without having to think about it, so hopefully) and the flow of the writing/phrasing means that the more general and background details don't seem too off-topic. Kingsif (talk) 14:22, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

@Jo-Jo Eumerus:, I am sorry if I was rude. I have a brain injury that makes me foggy at times - and takes me a bit to understand topics I don't write about often. I am glad Kingsif said this. And, it reads much better today, especially with some of the background in notes.–CaroleHenson (talk) 19:26, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Huh? Nobody has talked about anyone being rude... Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 19:35, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Okay, good.–CaroleHenson (talk) 20:21, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

@Jo-Jo Eumerus and Kingsif:, I see the article is now a good article. Congratulations! I think I can polish it a bit. If you wouldn't mind, I would like to make a couple of changes, which you could revert if you don't like them.–CaroleHenson (talk) 16:02, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

@CaroleHenson: Sure. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:17, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

@Jo-Jo Eumerus:, I put some of the background information into notes. Do you mind taking a look to ensure that I put the notes in the right place. As I said, if you don't agree with the changes, please revert.–CaroleHenson (talk) 16:47, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

The changes seem OK for me. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 18:22, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Okay, good!–CaroleHenson (talk) 19:07, 1 May 2020 (UTC)