Nominator(s): ceranthor 18:59, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
I am nominating this for featured article because it's a comprehensive account of this relatively obscure volcano. At the last FAC, there were problems with organization and images. While I haven't quite been able to tell which feature in the satellite images is Calabozos, I plan on doing that during the course of this FAC. Otherwise, everything that could be fixed from the last FAC has been fixed, and I feel the article is now ready to be re-nominated. ceranthor 18:59, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
No citations that I can see to González-Ferrán
Nor to "Simkin, T., and Siebert"
Some of the information in the sources actually used came from these references. Should they be removed?
If they are not directly cited, they should be listed separately as "Further reading". Brianboulton (talk) 22:55, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
"This subduction process has resulted in the formation of the Peru-Chile Trench, an oceanic trench in the Pacific Ocean. It also produced the Andean Volcanic Belt and the rest of the Andes." I have difficulty in finding evidence for these statements in the cited source.
The second sentence is certainly in there, but the first one was indeed from a different source. Nice catch. ceranthor 21:42, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
Otherwise citations and sources look OK Brianboulton (talk) 21:14, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
Thank you for your suggestions.
Support—My concerns were addressed. Comments—Nice article. Just a few issues:
"...a massive amount of space." is vague. Should this list the 200–500 cubic kilometres from the "Eruptive History" section?
Is there a depth listed for the caldera?
"Calabozos is of similar age to the Cerro Azul stratovolcano." The caption should clarify which of these is being displayed.
The description of the first eruption doesn't list an estimated volume, in contrast to the second and third eruptions. Is this information available?
It's not in any sources I have afaik. I suspect that they're unsure because of erosion. Hildreth says "Subsequent ice advances [...] excavated spectacular exposures in the course of removing as much as 75 percent of extracaldera units S and V and probably 95 percent of unit L." So I'd assume that means no.
The "Stern et al.", "Grunder" and "Grunder and Mahood" short form notation cites don't list a year, whereas the other short form citations do. It would be good to be consistent.
It doesn't appear that the following citation is used. Any reason for not including this information?
Grunder, Anita L., Thompson, J. Michael, Hildreth, W. (July 1987). "The hydrothermal system of the Calabozos caldera, central Chilean Andes". Journal of Volcanology and Geothermal Research. 32 (4): 287–298. doi:10.1016/0377-0273(87)90080-1.CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
I have access to it, but it seemed highly technical and simply unnecessary at the time. I'd be willing to incorporate some of the information if you wish.
I think some of the basic information would be interesting, such as the amount of time the thermal system has been active (much less than the age of the caldera), the existence of two distinct systems with different sources, &c.
Added a bit of information.
Thank you. Regards, RJH (talk) 21:46, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for the comments!
Support – I couldn't find any prose/grammar issues with the article. The thing I noticed was "Calabozos" repeats on the lead (Calabozos and the majority of the Andean volcanoes formed [...] South American continental lithosphere. Calabozos is in a transitional). Great job on the article.Novice7 (talk) 07:21, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for the support. I tried to fix that one instance you mentioned. ceranthor 13:43, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
Looks really good. Novice7 (talk) 14:27, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
Support with regard to Criterion 1a. I made a few edits, please feel free to revert them if I have introduced any errors. I left one comment on the Talk Page about the inconsistent use of "million years ago" and "mya". I don't like "Each period is distinct for its composition and size" but not knowing the subject, I have left it; what does it mean? The article is much improved since the last FAC. Thank you for an engaging contribution. Graham Colm (talk) 19:14, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
I think I got all the million years ago, and I removed the sentence. Thanks. ceranthor 23:11, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
From what point on the caldera is elevation measured?
Third paragraph of Geography needs editing for flow and clarity
"Its largest historical eruption was at Quizapu Crater, located on the north side of Cerro Azul's summit" - okay, but given that we're not told where Cerro Azul is that location doesn't mean much
"at a rate of 9 centimetres (4 in) to 11 centimetres (4 in)" - that conversion seems meaningless. Also, rate per what? Year, month, week, day? Nikkimaria (talk) 16:03, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
I fixed the last two. The elevation is measured from base to summit. The paragraph probably still needs a copyedit. ceranthor 19:14, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
Comments: Looks good. Here are my comments:
sedimentary and metamorphic rock in the lead need to be linked.
andesitic and rhyolitic magma – can they be briefly explained in parentheses? Same with "plutonic".
They're linked; basically it means magma that it made from molten andesite or rhyolite, which are rocks. I'm not sure it would be helpful to explain them.
I've been told from people who've reviewed my articles that we're not supposed to use flags in infoboxes. I can't remember if it's policy, but we might want to double-check that.
"800,000 (0.8 mya) years ago and lasting until 150,000 (0.15 mya) years ago" ... Shouldn't it be: "800,000 years ago (0.8 mya) and lasting until 150,000 years ago (0.15 mya)"?
In "Geography and structure", please link or explain "dacitic".
"The scale of the eruptive events that produced these features remains essentially unclear." – Maybe it's just me, but I don't like "essentially unclear". If some aspects are clear while others are not, then those aspects that are clear should be explained.
Although illustrations are important, I'm not sure if including File:Quizapu crater cerro azul.jpg is beneficial. With types of animals, similar species may be beneficial to look at. But if you're talking about the age of the volcano, showing the picture of another volcano is more likely to result in readers assuming they are looking at a picture of the volcano for which the article is entitled. Maybe I'm out-of-line, but since the feature that's being compared is not necessarily visible, I don't see the point of an illustration aside from breaking up the monotony of the text. But then again, you mention a similarity in size in the text... maybe that could be added to the caption (talking about similarities in size and age)??
I believe the old caption had that information in it, but I was asked to remove it. I'll re-mention it.
"In comparison to the well-preserved rocks of the dry, central part of the Andes, the record that defines the southern sector is poorly kept." – Record keeping is a human task, rock preservation is a function of nature. If I'm not misinterpreting this, you mean that the rock preservation was poor and you're stating it in an anthropomorphic way. If I'm correct, please rephrase.
Re-used preserved. Hope that's okay.
"Vegetation is rare in the area. The 1932 eruption of Cerro Azul's Quizapu Crater reduced much of the land to a pumice desert." – Does this mean there used to be vegetation, but the eruption erased it and it never returned? I just want to be clear.
Yeah, that's what it means.
"Its remoteness means that Calabozos poses little threat." – I suggest appending "to human populations." Otherwise, the threat could be to other wildlife, the climate of the region, a fragile habitat, etc.
Aside from that, you've got a great article. I'm looking forward to adding my support. – VisionHolder « talk » 00:11, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
I implemented everything except for a few which I explained. Thanks for your comments. ceranthor 01:58, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
Comments. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. Please check the edit summaries. - Dank (push to talk)
Some reviewers object to doubled parentheses: "( ... elevation: 3,250 metres (10,663 ft))". I don't have a position. If you like, you can replace the inner parens with "or". - Dank (push to talk) 23:30, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
In case it comes up, I have no problem with the hyphen in "north-south"; I don't think this violates WP:DASH.