Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Calabozos/archive1

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted by Laser brain 04:50, 14 March 2011 [1].

Calabozos edit

Nominator(s): ceranthor 03:53, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because I feel it is a comprehensive and well-written account of a minor, but interesting volcano. Since beginning the article a little over a month ago, I've improved it drastically, adding lots of information, consulting new references, and finding nice images. The help of Awickert, who found resources for me, DiverDave, who helped when the article was still small, and Malleus, who copyedited the article for me, has been invaluable, and I thank them all for their contributions. I'd also like to thank Pyrotec for reviewing the article at GAN. ceranthor 03:53, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum: I have not decided whether or not to include this as a WikiCup entry. ceranthor 22:34, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sources comments

please fine-tune the refs:

*et. al to the correct et al. (also in the article text)

*endashes for page ranges (bibliography)

*Drake et al. should have a doi

*compare refs #12 and #13, the latter has a comma following the author name, unlike the former

*why is ref #15 "Grunder and Mahood" when it's only "Grunder" in previous instances? What's the page #?

Source doesn't provide pg. numbers.

*ref #18 change "pg." to "p."; ref #8 change "page" to "p."

*ref #20 needs an author (Topinka, Lyn) and the date should be enclosed in parentheses like the prior instance (ref #19)

inconsistent use of title case or sentence case in journal article titles in the bibliography

I'm simply following the article names themselves; the one that's not capitalized is not capitalized here.

The case for titles should be consistent in this article; it won't make any difference to the reader searching for the article if the case is switched from title to sentence or vice versa. Sasata (talk) 16:08, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

*author display not constant in the bibliography: some have "and" before the final author, some don't

*Siebert, L needs fullstop to be consistent with others

*does Stern et al. (2007) not have an ISBN or location?

Otherwise sources and citations look ok. Sasata (talk) 06:08, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

More: Sasata (talk) 16:08, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
~~"Moreno, T. and Gibbons W, ed., p. 154." why is this listed with the editors when there's a prior instance that lists by the author of the chapter?~~
since you're using literature that starts with the author name Hildreth in both the Bibliography and the References section, it might be a good idea to specify the year in the short-form refs to alleviate confusion (eg. instead of "Hildreth et al., p. 45." use "Hildreth et al. (1984), p. 45."
~~refs #9 and #14 have the first author delimited by semicolons, but the rest are by commas... not sure if that's deliberate or not but it looks a little odd~~
~~still need to fix author display: compare "Simkin, T; Siebert, L. (1994)." and "Grunder, Anita L. and Mahood, Gail A. (1988)."~~

Should all be fixed. The references are delimited by semicolons where there's an author and coauthors.

Nevermind, I got rid of the semicolons.

Thanks for making the changes. For future reference, I think if you want to give the first names in full, it's easier to read the list of authors if they are delimited by semicolons. If you only give the initials, then commas are fine. I've never been a fan of the "and" before the final author, but of course that's personal preference. I'll give the rest of the article a full review after you've had time to deal with the extensive commentaries below. Sasata (talk) 16:37, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment on 1c/1c—Sources list looks a little thin to me... have any of these journal articles been checked for additional information? Sasata (talk) 06:16, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Title: The link between volcanism and tectonics in the southern volcanic zone of the Chilean Andes: A review

Author(s): Cembrano, J; Lara, L

Source: TECTONOPHYSICS Volume: 471 Issue: 1-2 Pages: 96-113 Published: 2009

Nothing additional on Calabozos, but it goes into detailed info about SVZ.

Title: Eruptive stratigraphy of the Tatara-San Pedro complex, 36 degrees S, southern volcanic zone, Chilean Andes: Reconstruction method and implications for magma evolution at long-lived arc volcanic centers

Author(s): Dungan, MA; Wulff, A; Thompson, R

Source: JOURNAL OF PETROLOGY Volume: 42 Issue: 3 Pages: 555-626 Published: MAR 2001

Similarly, here, just brief mentions of Calabozos, nothing new.

Title: The Puelche Volcanic Field: extensive Pleistocene rhyolite lava flows in the Andes of central Chile

Author(s): Hildreth, W; Fierstein, J; Godoy, E, et al.

Source: REVISTA GEOLOGICA DE CHILE Volume: 26 Issue: 2 Pages: 275-+ Published: DEC 1999

Found a bit of information! I'll add it to the article.

Title: Volcanism and erosion during the past 930 ky at the Tatara San Pedro complex, Chilean Andes

Author(s): Singer, BS; Thompson, RA; Dungan, MA, et al.

Source: GEOLOGICAL SOCIETY OF AMERICA BULLETIN Volume: 109 Issue: 2 Pages: 127-142 Published: FEB 1997

Title: O-18/O-16 ISOTOPE GEOCHEMISTRY OF SILICIC LAVA FLOWS ERUPTED FROM VOLCAN OLLAGUE, ANDEAN CENTRAL VOLCANIC ZONE

Author(s): FEELEY, TC; SHARP, ZD

Source: EARTH AND PLANETARY SCIENCE LETTERS Volume: 133 Issue: 3-4 Pages: 239-254 Published: JUL 1995

Couldn't find a full-length article, but the abstract doesn't even mention Calabozos, so I'm going to assume there's not really anything here.

Title: LOW DELTA-O-18 SILICIC VOLCANIC-ROCKS AT THE CALABOZOS CALDERA COMPLEX, SOUTHERN ANDES - EVIDENCE FOR UPPER-CRUSTAL CONTAMINATION

Author(s): GRUNDER, AL

Source: CONTRIBUTIONS TO MINERALOGY AND PETROLOGY Volume: 95 Issue: 1 Pages: 71-81 Published: 1987

Title: THE HYDROTHERMAL SYSTEM OF THE CALABOZOS CALDERA, CENTRAL CHILEAN ANDES

Author(s): GRUNDER, AL; THOMPSON, JM; HILDRETH, W

Source: JOURNAL OF VOLCANOLOGY AND GEOTHERMAL RESEARCH Volume: 32 Issue: 4 Pages: 287-298 Published: JUL 1987

Yes, I've read over the two articles directly above and found them to be a little too specific and complicated for inclusion on wiki, but I'm willing to add them if you wish. As for the rest, I'm inclined to think that the articles on specific complexes would not be particularly useful, but the Calabozos one and the Chile volcanism ones look promising. ceranthor 13:50, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think I've resolved your concerns, Sasata. ceranthor 14:45, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've added a couple of DOIs. I think the references may need another pass through to ensure the issues above are sorted (e.g. page numbers and ISBNs are important), and can you check if the journal articles have free access to the full text anywhere? Rjwilmsi 21:22, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You fixed all the ISBN/DOI issues, and no, there are none of those freely available. If you find one online, you should probably be concerned. ;) ceranthor 22:27, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I just added the p. number for the Grunder/Mahood ref. Everything should now be fixed. ceranthor 22:31, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Given the length of the article, a slightly shorter lead would be more proportionate
2 dab links - Lenticle and Acid leaching
"Part of the Chilean Andes' volcanic segment, it is considered part of the..."; "results in the formation or...results in the formation of" - repetitive, check for similar issues
Lead could be a bit more accessible in nature. What is "plutonic"? "Tuff"? "mya"?
Link unfamiliar terms on first appearance. For example, "stratovolcanoes" appears in the first paragraph but is not linked until the fourth. At the same time, avoid overlinking. For example, Miocene is linked twice in the same paragraph
"Calabozos caldera is..." - is "Calabozos caldera" the correct name? If so, amend other instances; if not, grammar
Check MoS issues, particularly hyphens/dashes
"Beginning 6.4 million years ago the Chilean Andes were quiet, though whether or not this quiet took place throughout all of the Andes remains unknown. Central Chilean volcanoes began activity once again around 2.5 million years ago, and have erupted almost continuously since" - phrasing is slightly awkward
"Calabozos lies in an area between thick and thin continental crust, suggesting its eruptions are probably fed from a pool of andesitic and rhyolitic magma that sits just under its caldera" - I'm not a geologist, so I'm having some trouble seeing how these points are connected. Why does its location in a transitional region imply the presence of a magma pool? Could this be made clearer?
Which is correct: direction-direction-trending or direction-direction trending or direction-to-direction trending? (Rechecked 21:19, 11 March 2011 (UTC), not done)
Calabozos "seems to be" or "is" of similar age to Cerro Azul? Make consistent
"the record that defines the southern sector is poorly kept" - meaning is unclear, and seems to imply human involvement/stewardship
"lake" refers to the laguna, correct? May want to clarify
Make sure to provide conversions for all measurements in climate section

Didn't get all the way through yet, I'll revisit once you've had a chance to look at these points. Nikkimaria (talk) 05:09, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Should have fixed all but three. I can't think of any other way to phrase the kept sentence. I'm not good at spotting hyphen/dash problems (poor eyesight), and I actually quite like the length of the lead; if we could keep it that way, I would be happy. ;)

"(lens-shaped layers of mineral or rock embedded in a different material.)." - don't need the first period, and I'm again confused by your meaning here - what "different material"? Must it be rock, or can it be anything?
"The sheets of remaining ash left over from each of the eruptions range from 200 cubic kilometers (48 cu mi) to 500 cubic kilometers" - are those numbers each or total? If each, which eruption produced the higher number? If total, reword for clarity
"As the ash was deposited, it accumulated in layers that formed quickly and resisted erosion, but only partially melded together. Other than three sections where very thick or thin rock did not coalesce well, the entire sheet is melded together." - these seem contradictory to me, can you explain/reword?
"between less than 5 to approximately 15 percent" vs "contains five to 30 percent" - why the different approach to numbers?
"its high levels of lithics probably originates from either being exposed to the rocks after they were erupted, lying adjacent to them while they underwent subsidence, or just formed slowly and over a long period of time. Any of these reasons would also effectively account for the poor mixing of the lavas" - grammar
"ejected from Calabozos vicinity" - grammar
"traveled in a similar format" - phrasing seems odd; I think I understand what you're saying, but it could be worded better
"continue for hundreds of meters until they disappear" - one can assume they no longer continue after they disappear. Are you missing an adjective - gradually, suddenly?
"non-welded sheets of lava. Another zone of nonwelded" - which hyphenation is correct?
"near Cajon Los Calabozos" - this means nothing here, as there is no map and it's not explained until later that this is a hot spring (Rechecked 21:19, 11 March 2011 (UTC), not done)
"It last erupted during Holocene time, producing a 2.5 cubic kilometers (1 cu mi) lava flow" - grammar. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:13, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think I've resolved all your concerns. ceranthor 13:51, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Most specific issues are fixed. However, I think this article needs a good copy-edit for clarity and flow before I can support. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:19, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Lead

How do you pronounce 'Calabozos'? Do you pronounce it differently from the English Calaboose, and what language is Calabozos from? Also, why does Calaboose redirect to prison? That confused me when I first clicked on it. It might be better not to link 'Calaboose' at all, unless the name means something.
"pool of magma nearby" - seems a bit vague - can you be more specific?
"Loma Seca Tuff" - is there a way to avoid semi-linking part of what looks like a proper noun, and linking tuff another way?
"a massive amount of space surrounding the caldera" - this is also vague, I'm left wondering whether this is hundreds of metres, kilometres, tens of kilometres? Is it volume or distance? Is there way to be more specific than "massive"?
"Each period is distinct for its composition and size" - this sounds like a very precise wording required by the science, but leaves the layreader wondering what it really means and why you've said it. Either explain why this is important, or drop this.
26 by 14 by 3.5 km - I find myself mentally picturing that and thinking - it is quite flat! If it is, maybe say that? I also find myself wondering if the large spread of the volcano 26 and 14 km away from the caldera accounts for this "massive amount" of tuff surrounding the caldera? i.e. is the tuff part of the volcano, or deposited outside this 26 by 14 km area?
- Update: having looked at some other sources, I now see that it is the caldera that is 26 by 14 kilometres - one source calls it a mega-caldera. And the term I was looking for is Topographic prominence - do you know what that is for this volcano, or is it just a sprawling mess of volcanoes arising from this massive caldera? More like a complex than a single volcano?. Regardless, I think that the lack of a picture or map means that it is all too easy to misunderstand the current prose, like I did when reading: "The volcano's dimensions are 26 kilometers (16 mi) by 14 kilometers (8.7 mi)". I then mentally put a caldera on top of a volcano of that size... Maybe replace the word volcano with caldera? Carcharoth (talk) 02:26, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
~~You give the size of the volcano but not the caldera - has anyone published measurements of that?~~
Having now reminded myself that a caldera is not a volcanic summit crater(!), do you know when the event took place that caused the most recent collapse that formed the caldera? Some sources call it a multi-ringed caldera (e.g. the abstract for Hildreth 1984 says "composite ring-structure caldera"), does that mean successive collapses after successive eruptions? And if this is a "composite ring-structure caldera" why does the article not say this?
"Activity from the volcano has produced multiple other stratovolcanoes and even a complex volcano" - in mentally trying to picture this, I'm not clear whether the 'child' volcanoes are close by or on top of the existing one, or a fair distance away and connected to the same underground system. Is it possible to be clearer here? I read the "Later events" section, but that didn't really help. A map of the complex is really needed here.
I also found myself (in the absence of any picture of the volcano) trying to picture what its surroundings are like. It is also not clear if the figure of 3,508 metres elevation is from sea level or from the base of the volcano? Which-ever it is, I find myself wanting to know what the other measurement is, so I can picture how high it rises above the mountains around it, or alternatively how high they rise above this one (or maybe they are all the same height). How far away are the other nearest peaks? How many are there? Is it tall for an Andean volcano or on the small size? Things like that.
Are there satellite pictures of the region? Not everyone will know that you can follow the co-ordinates at the top to get to satellite imagery (and even there, zooming in gets a better view of what I think is the caldera), so maybe prompt readers via an external link and/or change the scale on the co-ords link?
You say "an extremely remote area of poorly glaciated mountains" - can you be more precise? Can you give the distance to one of the nearest sizeable settlements?

Geology

"The date of its last known eruption is unknown" - confusing - how can an eruption be both known and unknown? And doesn't Holocene mean the last eruptions were in the Holocene (as the infobox implies)? Maybe you mean the date is not known with precision?
"In a publication" - change to "In a paper published in 1976"?
"whether or not this quiet took place" -> "whether or not this quiet period took place"?
How does the "K-Ar dating" paragraph relate to Calabozos? Were the Calabozos eruptions included in those described by Drake? If so, that needs to be explicitly stated.
"just under" - can you be more precise, say kilometres at least? Give some idea, though I realise this is something that people may need to do further measurements to ascertain, what justifies "just under"? There must be something that allows an assessment like that to be made.
Diagrams would really help here when describing the different layers and events. Prose description can only go so far.
Rather than show a picture of another volcano of similar age, why not show one that looks similar in shape and appearance?
"Malargüe" - double-check umlaut
When you mention Hildreth, instead of "Their study", say "Their 1984 study" - gives chronological context to the research.
Consider scattering date context throughout for the research to give something more accessible to latch onto for the reader getting lost in the geological terms.

Climate and vegetation

You mention vegetation and climate but not the fauna - if there is no fauna (e.g. due to the climate, or due to the volcanism and the "pumice desert"), you should say this. If there are some limited fauna, or no studies have been done of the fauna, then say this.

Threats and preparedness

You are going to hate me for saying this, but the mentions of the Armero tragedy, the CVO and Mount St Helens are gratuitous here. Step back a bit and think whether they really have anything of relevance to this article. If not, try and rewrite this section and focus more on the Volcanic Disaster Assistance Program, which sounds like it should have an article.

Pictures

Unless the following photo can be used under a free licence, I would suggest pointing the readers to this photo of the caldera. That helped me understand things a bit more. I would also suggest finding some way of telling the reader early on to look at the photo to help orientate themselves when reading the article (I found the above image when Googling to try and work out what this 26 by 14 km bit was all about).
Alternatively, you could search Google Images (like I just did), for "calabozos" + "caldera" (that gets rid of all the images of prisons), and the top hits are examples of Astronaut Photography of the Earth (from the Space Shuttles and the ISS). The site search interface is here. I searched for Calabozos and then found the 'Astronaut Photography of the Earth' search system useless, so went back to Google Images and there are the following six images: [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7]. If those are public domain (the terms of use are here), then I hope one of them shows the caldera!
I also found some ASTER images here. I got there by clicking the "MAPS" link on the sidebar on the entry for Calabozos on the GVP (Global Volcanism Program) page. Large number of images there, showing the caldera in a range of conditions. The one I liked was this one from 2006, but there are others as well, so if those can be used, do pick one (or more) that are best used to illustrate the article. I think the Calabozos caldera is the horizontal rectangular feature just above and to the right of the glacier-like feature.

Overall, I found myself wanting to know more about the geography and climate and environment of the area, and felt the article was a bit too focused on the complex geology (compare this article with another volcano article that has just been nominated at FAC: Mount Cleveland (Alaska) - the difference in approach between the two articles is quite striking). It's also incredibly frustrating to read descriptions of something with no picture to look at! I'm sure the geology is excellently summarised, but I found myself wanting more from the article and it felt like the story is only half-told and there is more detail yet to be found by later researchers. Carcharoth (talk) 03:43, 1 March 2011 (UTC) Added extra notes. 03:10, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comments! That's a lot of stuff for me to do, so it'll take me a good day or two to get around to all of these. ceranthor 13:08, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I thought I would have more time this week, so I apologize that I'll probably have to wait until tomorrow or Monday to get to these. Sorry! ceranthor 18:50, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Me and Cer, we write somewhat differently; I for one am less heavy on the tectonic setting stuff. The whole section as a matter of fact was Cer's idea originally =) ResMar 04:32, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.