Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Coropuna/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 archived by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 25 December 2019 [1].


Nominator(s): Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 18:34, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

This article is about the third-tallest mountain in Peru and one of the world's highest volcanoes. It began forming during the Pliocene or Miocene and its last eruption was during the Holocene in the last 2,000 years. It also has a large but shrinking ice cap, the largest in the tropics, and a major source of water for the dry surroundings. In addition to these natural science aspects, it was considered a holy mountain by the Inka, who built a large archeological site in its surroundings. Note that there was some prior discussion at peer review. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 18:34, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

Image review

  • Suggest scaling up the various ice diagrams
  • Suggest adding alt text. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:27, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
@Nikkimaria:I've added ALT text, but I did not succeed at increasing the size of the gallery images. They come from this publication; perhaps you know how to get larger versions. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:14, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
I wonder about the possibility of reaching out to the authors? Nikkimaria (talk) 18:56, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
Perhaps, but I've never been good at contacting complete strangers with such requests. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:21, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
@Nikkimaria:Upon thinking, I decided to screencap the images from the PDF file rather than extracting them, and have uploaded the copies to Commons. When/if the files appear here is probably a matter of the software updating. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 18:31, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

Sources reviewEdit

Doing...but it may take a little while, there's a lot to look at. Brianboulton (talk) 19:51, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

Here it is:

  • No spotchecks carried out
  • Links to sources all working, per the checker tool
  • Formats:
  • Per MoS, page ranges requires dashes, not hyphens. See refs 46, 105, 167, 190, 193, 195, 196, 203, 218, and check for others.
  • Retrieval dates should be in consistent format. Ref 109 seems to be the odd one out.
  • Ref 1: retrieval date missing
  • Ref 72 has an oclc you can use: 458607359 Also, it's not clear who the publisher is.
  • Ref 109: You should give the publisher, not just the website address
  • Ref 161: retrieval date missing
  • Inconsistency over inclusion of publisher locations. Books listed in the References don't have them, but some (not all) listed under Sources do.
  • Some authors' names and occasionally other information in the References and Sources lists are rendered in caps, probably as a result of pasting. They should be de-capped unless their is some specific reason, such as INGEMMET which I take to be an acronym
  • Spanish sources: The language indicator is missing in ref 209, and in a number of the listed sources (Caldas, Campos, Fourtané, Galán, and others)
  • In the text, there are some overlong citation strings – in the "Elevation and size" section there's one eleven citations long, with two five-strings in the same section. These looks pretty hideous – try bundling.
  • Are the books listed under "Books" cited sources? If so, they should appear before "External links". If not, they should be retitled as "Further reading"
  • Who publishes the journal Names?
  • In the sources list, Thouret et al (2002) lacks publisher
  • Some publishers in the sources list, e.g INGEMMET, Instituto Geológico are wrongly italicized, as they are institutions not works or publications
  • Quality/reliability: No issues: all sources appear scholarly and meet the FA criteria.

Brianboulton (talk) 20:01, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

  • @Brianboulton:I've punted the the dashes as my keyboard does not have them. #1 and #161 I don't recall the retrieval date but it was in March 2019. I've done the points listed before "inconsistency over inclusion" - I'll see to handle remaining format issues tomorrow if nobody else comes before. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:26, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
    @Brianboulton:I think I got everything. Regarding the journal Names, the source says "Published on behalf of the American Name Society" what would be the correct way to reference this? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:46, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
    What I'd do is "work= Names", "publisher= "American Names Society". Brianboulton (talk) 10:50, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
    @Brianboulton:Done. Any idea where the duplicate template argument that is being flagged by the category is? Preview does not show it. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 11:55, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

Comments by MONGOEdit

I will be posting comments here as I proofread and copy edit...any edits I make that appear overly bold are easily reversible.

  • The three image gallery is out of place. The one image with the date should be eliminated as we already have a satellite image a little further down. The remaining images should be reduced in size to standard thumbnail floating sizes.
    @MONGO:Removed the three file image, but I don't think the gallery works at thumbnail size; too small. I've done a thing at Commons that might enlarge some files, but whether that makes the files larger in thumbnail version I don't know. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 18:31, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
    I was mainly discussing the three huge images in the "Surrounding terrain" section. I went and gave them float size and placed them within the article body.--MONGO (talk) 18:54, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
  • The Elevation and size section seems clunky. I tried to clean it up, but I noticed there are two different cite styles being used...this issue needs to be standardized with one style or another. I also do not understand why we need eleven (11) references for one claim. I would pick two of the best and leave them. The passage "In 1910 it was believed that the volcano was over 7,000 metres (23,000 ft) high and thus the highest mountain in South America ahead of Aconcagua.[72] A North American expedition in 1909 determined that Coropuna was not the highest mountain in Peru as it only found an elevation of 6,615 m (21,703 ft)" seems to be contradictory...why would it be consider the tallest in 1910 if a year earlier it was demonstrated it was not the highest? The last two sentences in the section are hard to comprehend what is trying to be conveyed...maybe go and make the names of the various peaks in italics or in quotes?
    @MONGO:This is going to be tough. The reason why it has 11 references is because AFAIK there is not one authoritative source that out-weights all the others thus I included all of them per WP:BALANCE .. but maybe you know of one that could be used. I've rewritten the contradictory sentence a bit and put the names into italics. Regarding citation style, I use that combination of sfn and ref tags whenever I am using sources with and without page numbers. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:22, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
    Yeah, I still think we can merely state that the precise elevations are not known, have merely few of the best quality RSs posted and leave it at that. Seems like a lot of text that can be more easily summarized.--MONGO (talk) 18:54, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
    Well, I did consider doing this when I originally wrote this section but realized that there is no source for saying "the precise elevations are not known" and that most sources probably deserve about comparable weight. I think perhaps this becomes more readable if these strung-along references are bundled. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:37, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
  • The bullet-pointed icecap size details can be greatly reduced and converted to a table of maybe 4-5 key dates (1955, 1975, 2000, 2014). Or perhaps incorporate into a paragraph but still reduced to key dates.--MONGO (talk) 18:54, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
    I was thinking perhaps that a graph might work as we have several ways to draw them, but none of the graph options I see allow one to show an error margin. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:37, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
    Went and put selected dates in a table, but not sure how to edit that table so it will not be autoimatically hidden.--MONGO (talk) 20:40, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
    @MONGO:I've removed the collapse, now it should display. I'll be looking for graphs anyhow, though; would a graph w/o error margins be acceptable? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 21:28, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
    That's fine of course. Thank you.--MONGO (talk) 21:53, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
    @MONGO:Didn't find a way with wikicode, but one with R which yielded File:Coropuna ice cap extent 1950-2015.svg; do you think this would work as a graphical illustration of the past extent of the ice cap? Also notifying Nikkimaria as it'd be a new image. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 17:35, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
    Well, not sure I like that one...maybe a line graph would be better? I recognize it allows the symbols to related to the specific reference. I originally thought just putting the main dates in a paragraph with no table or grapgh, but not sure what to do now.--MONGO (talk) 03:51, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
    Hrm. I don't think we can do a line graph with disparate datasets and a margin of error. I'd prefer this graphic as it fits into a smaller space and does not leave out too much information; I removed two sources because they were not clear about the date, though. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:46, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
    After thinking, I've replaced the table with the graphic. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 12:15, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
  • I would move the "Water source" section to follow the "Other glacial periods" section. Its current position does not seem to fit well and the water source IS the ice cap generally.--MONGO (talk) 19:03, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
    Done, moved the geothermal/baths subsection to "present-day status" although I am not sure if that is the best place for it. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:37, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Flesh out the third paragraph in the lead to include a few more details on vegetation, etc. as covered in the article body per MOS:LEAD.--MONGO (talk) 19:09, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
    @MONGO:Added some information on vegetation. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:37, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Under "Ice Cap", is the ice cap and average of 80 metres or is that something else. If average, add that.--MONGO (talk) 20:53, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
    @MONGO:Added "average" and changed the source to a better one. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:43, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Under Glaciers and periglacial phenomena, I am confused by the wording: "Some glaciers have been named; on the southwestern flank two glaciers are named Azufrioc, three Rio Blanco and six Tuialqui"...are two glacier named the same, three more share another name and six more another name? A couple paragraphs down is the wording "Gray, fresh moraines"...what is the Gray about, is that a color description? If so I would call it that, a color description.--MONGO (talk) 18:41, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
    Clarified this. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 21:36, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Under the Mythology, religion and legends section I added a "confusing" boilerplate for cleanup of this section..can we add or clarify this section better?--MONGO (talk) 19:34, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
    @MONGO:Depends; which section(s) is/are the issue? I've done a minimal rewrite. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 21:36, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Have completed my copy editing. I try tpo not be too harsh but saw many issues with overlinking and more petty problems with formatting such as the preference to abbreviate numbers and equations after they are first mentioned and to have a non-breaking space between the number and years and similar. Some more very minor tweaks may be in order but I am finished for now and I:
    • Support promotion to Featured Article.--MONGO (talk) 18:10, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Comments by Nick MoyesEdit

I'm sorry to' drive by' and pour a bit of cold water on this otherwise very good article, but I really don't think any article about a significant mountain can reach FA status without at least some attempt to add a reasonable section on normal accepted mountaineering routes.

  • The sentence "Since 1911, first ascents of other summits of the mountain have been reported intermittently, and the area owing to its rugged nature draws mountaineering." is far from encyclopaedic, and actually rather clumsily-worded.
    Reworded this a bit. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:12, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
  • From the statement in the article, Bingham was the first ascensionist (by reaching the highest peak on the Hale Peruvian Expedition, but both both he and Peck should probably be included in the Infobox.
    I am a little wary of adding that to the infobox as we really don't know whether they were the first people on the summit, given that Inka folk often climbed mountaintops as well. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:12, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
  • For information on the 3-day ascent route, see Biggar's mountaineering guidebook which indicates that the W rib of the massif is the 'normal route', on the French adjectival climbing scale it is graded at 'Facile'. I don't this should source simply be included as 'Further reading' but used as a proper reference to expand the climbing section a little further.
    @Nick Moyes:Done, but I don't know what "RH" refers to. I've also added some other information from that source, reasoning that things like elevation data and caveats might also be reasonably sourceable from here. Note that Google Books does not show any pagenumbers so I left this one as an URL link to a page that shows search results. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:12, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
  • An explanation of the External link to would also be useful, plus an indication of the fact that it's in Spanish.
    I've removed it. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:12, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
  • I would also observe that many sources refer to the mountain as Nevado Coropuna, and so I'm surprised this isn't emboldened within the lead.
    I dunno, how should this be formulated? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:12, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
  • I can't get a major source url to function. See Valenzuela Ortiz & Núñez Juárez 2001
    Replaced; they had redesigned their website. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:12, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
  • The first sentence of the Holocene section uses semi-colons in two places within it, yet it isn't a list. This complex sentence needs to be broken up into two or three shorter ones.
    Reworded this a bit. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:12, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Finally, I was surprised by the number of red-links in this article. I can excuse all the settlement names in red, but less so the odd term like semihumid or fissure eruptions. These could be addressed. I wonder what's wrong with using Fissure vent, or why unlinking semihumid isn't more sensible?

Hoping this feedback is of help. Nick Moyes (talk) 00:52, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

@Nick Moyes:Sort of a drive-by reply as I don't have much time ATM, but the problem I see with climbing routes is that every single source that could offer such info is self-published. Biggar's book arguably comes closest to a reliable source as it's been used by others; Brianboulton would that be acceptable at FA level? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:40, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
I would definitely regard Biggar's guidebook as a WP:RS. It is clearly well-researched by an experienced mountaineer, who has published other books on S American high altitude climbing. As a mountaineer myself, it would be no understatement to say I would literally be prepared to stake my life on the contents of such a book, were I to plan to climb Coropuna. The info in that book can be verified against other user-edited or commercial sources which refer to undertaking the route, its difficulty level and base camp altitudes, etc such the user-edited but generally reliable Summitpost website (already used in External links), or commercial climbing tour companies offering guided ascents of Coropuna such as this and this. The  only likely change there might today would be in a slightly different grading level for the climb, possibly putting it up to PD as a result of climate change, but there's absolutely nothing that I can see in it that would be likely to be challenged that would make me doubt its reliability. Technical guidebooks to remote climbing areas are still often self-published, though less so nowadays as trekking and climbing becomes increasingly popular, and access to such areas becomes easier and cheaper, and that should not put us off regarding them as competent, incredibly well-researched sources of information. Cheers, Nick Moyes (talk) 09:29, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
In such circumstances I tend to accept the opinions of knowledgeable editors as to the reliability or otherwise of self-published sources. If, as in this case, the author is an acknowledged expert with wide credentials in the field, then I see no problem. Brianboulton (talk) 11:45, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
I'm now minded to support, but I still feel a bit of minor copyediting is needed through the article to give the page more coherence and a less clunky sentence flow. I've tried to work through some of the geomorphological sections where there are lots of cited facts, but sometimes a lack of coherence or logical flow, suggesting (rightly or wrongly) a lack of understanding of some elements, and more just a random gathering of statements. The random inclusion of a statement on the presence of "wetlands" on northern and southern sides of the mountain is a case in point, sandwiched as it is between sectoins about glaciation, so I have moved it (though I am still unclear how that information is derived from the cited geological map. Or is this meant to refer to fluvio-glacial deposits, which is another thing entirely?). I've tried address these issues by reordering sentences or by cutting down overly long, complex sentences by removing semicolons, and splitting them into two sentences. By contrast, there was a lack of semicolons in some paragraphs containing lists of things, where just the deployment of commas made it hard to work out what related to what. I've not checked the rest of the article for these issues, but I hope someone else will, as I am very time constrained right now. I feel this article is so nearly 'there' that it would be a great shame if the FA submission were to be closed too soon, before this last hurdle is jumped. My advice to editors would be to print off the article, stand up and read each section aloud, as if to an audience, listening to the flow of sentences as you say them, whilst also attempting to comprehend the contents. If you stumble, or sense a non-sequitur, then the contents probably still need further tweaking, especially the punctuation. Note that I have added one [clarification needed] template to one particularly unclear paragraph, which I've mentioned in my edit summary. Nick Moyes (talk) 02:42, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
@Nick Moyes:I've processed the tag and the couleé thing. Regarding the wetlands, the map mentions bofedales which are a type of wetland in the Andes. I'll see if I can do something about the prose this evening. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:30, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
@Jo-Jo Eumerus: thats a lot better. I think the mention of 'wetlands' (cited from the tiny Spanish language key of a geological map) is far too insignificant and too much like WP:OR to merit retaining, unless there's another source that talks in detail about it in detail. It would need to go in a habitats section, at any rate. Nick Moyes (talk) 16:44, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
@Nick Moyes:I've removed it. Regarding the prose, that's probably because I tend to read through a list of sources and add information to the article as I come across it in the sources, followed by a final copyedit to get the resulting compilation into a resemblance of a flow; sometimes stray facts are left behind that do not neatly fit into a particular place. Outside of these sections you mention the prose does not seem too bad ... but it's my writing that we are judging. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 19:09, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
Yes, I'm beginning to see that, Jo-Jo Eumerus. The problem is, we can't have Featured Articles that are full of facts, yet aren't easy to read or logically arranged, so your writing style is really very important at this final stage. We need a real flow, not "a resemblance of one". I'll do what I can with the physical geography first - but the rest ought to be gone through by someone, too, if that's not already been done. Look out for any new "clarification needed" tags. I'll try and ping you from an edit summary if I  add them. I'm about to do that over "supra-tropical facies" and "partly man-made soils". Nick Moyes (talk) 21:24, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
  • In Climate, what altitude does this sentence relate to? The summit, or the whole mountain? "Other reported precipitation values range between 700 mm/a (28 in/year)[3] and 1,000 mm/a (39 in/year)" Nick Moyes (talk) 22:18, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
    Source does not specify other than by referencing Herreros et al. 2009 which doesn't specify either; that's why the passive voice "other reported" is used. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 11:33, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Úbeda Palenque, José (2013). appears to contain a dead link
    Resolved; INGEMMET updated their website. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 11:33, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Temperatures I cannot make any sense of the second part of this paragraph whatsoever. It currently reads as follows:
Temperatures decrease upwards from an average of 12–17 °C (54–63 °F) at 2,000–3,000 m (6,600–9,800 ft) elevation over a mean temperature of 7.8 °C (46.0 °F) at 3,000–4,000 m (9,800–13,100 ft) elevation and 0–6 °C (32–43 °F) at 4,000–5,200 m (13,100–17,100 ft) elevation to below zero above 5,200 m (17,100 ft).[1] Temperatures fluctuate more over daily timescales than over seasonal ones when measured close to the glaciers.[2] Temperatures can reach 2 °C (36 °F) to up to 5,000 m (16,000 ft) elevation. During the Little Ice Age, at 5,000–5,200 m (16,400–17,100 ft) elevation temperatures decreased 5 to 7 °C (41 to 45 °F).[3] Southerly cold waves can sometimes reach Coropuna, leaving traces in ice cores in the form of southern pollen.[4]
I propose rewording the first half to:
Temperatures decrease with altitude, and at lower elevations around 2,000–3,000 m (6,600–9,800 ft) they average 12–17 °C (54–63 °F). Between 3,000–4,000 m (9,800–13,100 ft) they average 7.8 °C (46.0 °F) and at 4,000–5,200 m (13,100–17,100 ft) elevation they average 0–6 °C (32–43 °F). At altitudes above above 5,200 m (17,100 ft) they remain below zero.[1]
Swapped that part in. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 11:33, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
Here are my thoughts (in italics) on the second half, which I simply do not follow at all:
Temperatures fluctuate more over daily timescales than over seasonal ones when measured close to the glaciers.[2] (Is this relevant?) Temperatures can reach 2 °C (36 °F) to up to 5,000 m (16,000 ft) elevation.(this statement makes no sense at all) During the Little Ice Age, at 5,000–5,200 m (16,400–17,100 ft) elevation temperatures decreased 5 to 7 °C (41 to 45 °F).[3] (Did they decrease by 5 to 7 degrees C, or to 5 to 7 degrees? This is not clear. I assume you mean that "During the Little Ice Age, high altitude temperatures (at around 5,000–5,200 m (16,400–17,100 ft)) were 5 to 7 °C (41 to 45 °F) lower than they are today" But I dare not make that change as I am not confident that was actually the meaning.) Southerly cold waves can sometimes reach Coropuna, leaving traces in ice cores in the form of southern pollen.[4] (What is the signficance of stating this? And what is 'southern pollen? Is this trying to say: Occasional southerly cold waves reach Coropuna, as evidenced by ice core samples revealing traces of pollen from species found much farther south"? Is this Ice Age pollen, or modern core samples we're talking about here?)
Rewrote this one a bit. Yes, the first part is relevant as in the tropics temperature variations are more by daytime than by season. "Southern pollen" here refers to present-day; I am not sure how significant the whole thing is though. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 11:33, 3 December 2019 (UTC)


  1. ^ a b Valenzuela Ortiz & Núñez Juárez 2001, p. 7.
  2. ^ a b Silverio & Jaquet 2012, p. 5878.
  3. ^ a b Forget et al. 2008, p. 30.
  4. ^ a b Schotterer et al. 2009, pp. 32-33.
  • "The Inca expanded preexisting irrigation and terrace systems which are in part still existing today,[216] including the highest irrigation system in the world[217] which was possibly constructed on Coropuna to allow the cultivation of bitter potatoes,[218] and built new constructions.[216]" What does "and built new constructions." and the end of this sentence mean? Did they built new structures and expand preexisting irrigation systems? If so, the sentence needs turning around, because clauses right at the end only serve to confuse, becasue the reader has by then forgotten what the first part of the sentence was saying.
    New constructions is supposed to refer to new archeological sites; I took it out as it duplicates an earlier part of that same paragraph. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 11:33, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Surrounding terrain: Please would you check the statement Coropuna rises 2 to 3.5 km (1.2 to 2.2 mi)[1][2] above the surrounding terrain[1] from a base elevation of 4,500 m (14,800 ft).[3] As the mountain reaches 6,377 metres, adding two to three and a half kilometres to 4,500m would take it to between 6,500m and 8,000 metres!
    Rewrote this. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 11:33, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
  • In the 'other glacial periods' subsection, please clarify whether ...and old dates of 47,000 - 31,000 and 61,000 - 37,000 years ago could reflect even larger glacier expansions during marine isotope stage 3 or 4. refers to the Viraco moraines, or something else. If the former, I suggest phrasing it to say ...and other date estimates for these moraines, of 47,000...etc.
    Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 11:33, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
  • @Nick Moyes:OK, now that it's daytime in Switzerland I can continue. I am not sure about some of your changes, e.g the splitting of the "drainage divide" sentence; to me it sounds like the parts are connected and would be better off as one sentence rather than two short ones. Thanks for adding some additional verbs, though; the (over)use of "occurrence" is something that bothers me. Also resolved the maintenance tags. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 11:33, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
OK - I'd not realised you were based in Switzerland (I'll have to get you to join WP:ALPS!). I'll try and work through Geology when I get home tonight, and am happy to recheck any of my edits you're not confident about. Nick Moyes (talk) 13:15, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
@Jo-Jo Eumerus: I've taken out just under half the 19 uses of occur/occurs/occurrence, and replaced them with alternatives. Regarding the splitting of the 'drainage divide' sentence: Unless you're really unhappy, I would prefer to keep it in, please. My view is that sometimes we need to deploy short sentences, followed by a longer explanation, rather than maintaining one long and overly complex sentence which, for some users, can be quite challenging to follow, and is a writing technique that provides welcome light and shade to written factual content. A bit like taking a breath. My view is that a change of tempo in written content can keep the reader interested, though obviously this must never be at the expense of comprehension. For that reason I tend to deploy more commas than other folk, mostly to ensure that clauses within sentences are more, rather than less, apparent. Again, this is done with the with the aim of helping the reader better comprehend what is being offered to them. Having waded through trying to comprehend something long-winded, it can be refreshing to the mind to absorb something short and staccato for a change, don't you think? One final point before I 'set to' on the geology section: I think this edit of your has helped, though I am still a little bothered by the use of the term man-made soils, and I wanted to ask whether the citation genuinely uses this term, and whether a further explanation of past agricultural practices that led to the creation of these soils might be appropriate? If it's just a case that nutrients (such as animal/human dung) have been added over the centuries, then I'd like to be reassured that the term is still acceptable to use. In checking the use of the term online, I stumbled across Terra preta here on Wikipedia. Are we talking about this level of soil enhancement, I wonder? Nick Moyes (talk) 20:35, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
@Nick Moyes:Eh, I don't think I'll be writing about the Alps anywhere soon ... photos, maybe, and I have in my mind to write Engadine Line at some point.
Back to the Peruvian Andes, I am guessing this might be different expectations of what kind of sentence structure readers want. But unless someone else wants to weigh in I am happy to leave it as is.
WRT the "man-made", the source just says "anthropogenic" without any details. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 21:22, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
@Jo-Jo Eumerus: Oh, that's a shame. But maybe I'll have to get you to reciprocate when I bring Mont Blanc massif back for another go at gaining FA status. Like this one, I'd already done all the necessary hard work when it simply ran out of time and got archived whilst I was still working on it - maybe a bit like this one is in danger of doing! (I'd always planned to revisit it prior to going for an RfA, but I'm being pushed rather hard from certain admins right now)
Back to the Andes, as you say: Why don't we call them what they are, then? i.e. anthropogenic soils which I prefer to anthrosols. I can get my head around soils being man-influenced, but less so with 'man-made'. Must dash now - family is home. I'll remove the 'in use' template. Nick Moyes (talk) 21:33, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
Further queries:
  • The paragraph in Geology which states A major ignimbrite eruption took place about two million years ago at Coropuna; its deposits have been identified west of the volcano[10][11] and it led to the destruction of the edifice, which later re-formed on the remains of the old volcano.[8] seems to be a second attempt to describe the Coropuna I and Coropuna II stages, described quite well in the preceding paragraph. If I'm right, I wonder whether it is necessary to keep it? Either way, I wonder if using an alternative term than 'edifice' is worthwhile? Rightly or wrongly I tend to think of a man-made structure first, even if it is a valid use.
  • Can I query the logic of the following two sentences: However, one[68] or two tephra layers on a moraine close to the village of Viraco on the southern side have been dated to be about 41,000 and 30,000 - 31,000 years old. These ages correspond to radiocarbon ages of 37,370 ± 1,160 and 27,200 ± 300 years. It seems to me that one would either normally give the radio carbon dates first, then convert them to the corresponding real dates for the benefit of the reader, or simply not bother to give the radio carbon dates at all. (I also suggest a better wikilink would be to radiocarbon dating, rather than radiocarbon, should you decide you do want to keep this in.
In order:
  • Regarding "man-made", I used that because people w/o specialized knowledge will understand it better than "anthropogenic".
  • The problem was that it's not clear whether the ignimbrite eruption had anything to do with the Coropuna I/Coropuna II distinction. I know discussing "edifice" in the past with other content reviewers and the problem was that there is no other term that isn't ambiguous.
  • I don't remember the logic between that formulation.
Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:22, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
Right, so I've now proof-read as far down as the start of the Climate section, and am pretty happy with it all as it now stands. I'll do a final read-through of the rest later tonight, if I can. Meanwhile, please don't stick with 'man-made soils'; there's sufficient other highly-technical phraseology in this article to keep an undergraduate unhappy for weeks! 'Anthropogenic' will be the least of their concerns, and is a far, far better term -honestly. In return, how about I let you keep 'edifice', assuming you don't like 'structure' or 'mountain mass'?
Finally, it might be worth mentioning that one of my current WP:AAU adoptees (BrucePL) is a retired university geophysics professor in the US. I'm sure he'd be willing to do me a return favour and cast an eye over the technical side of things for , if you wished? Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 10:17, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
@Nick Moyes:If it can be done on short notice, sure. The impression I have is that I don't often run into professional geologists during my Wikipedia work, and by real-life qualifications I am a biologist not a volcanologist. And yes, I'll stick with "edifice" - "structure" and "mountain mass" sound a bit too ... abstract perhaps. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:24, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
  • In Archaeology>Inca times: Could you clarify what 'preceding' means in this sentence: Inca sites are often found at higher elevations than the preceding sites. I take that to refer to the 2nd Intermediate Period, but it is a bit unclear. I did find mention of 'Late Intermediate Period online and in Periodization of pre-Columbian Peru, but nothing using '2nd'.
  • Preceding here refers to preceding civilizations, nothing related to the periodization. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 21:12, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
@Jo-Jo Eumerus: OK - it's still a bit confusing, so perhaps you could tweak the wording there? Anyway, I've now completed my read through, and have finished editing the article. I must say, I'm exhausted by all that, so you must be totally knackered through your stalwart efforts getting it to this stage. Really great job. So...
I am now fully in support of promotion to FA Nick Moyes (talk) 21:35, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
Did a small clarification. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 22:07, 4 December 2019 (UTC)


  • Seems this needs some more commentary to push it up the hill so to speak, would be a shame if it was archived due to inactivity. I'll review soon. FunkMonk (talk) 11:53, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
  • There are a few duplinks, and I doubt whether snow even needs a link...
  • I agree with an earlier comment that images should spread throughout the article rather than dumped in a gallery. However, it seems odd that the image under "Lakes and rivers" doesn't show a water body, but the one under "Elevation and size" does. Maybe swap them?
    @FunkMonk:Removed a number of duplicate links and switched around images. With reference to the first sentence of your comment, I'll see if Nick Moyes and Iridescent have additional things to say as they previously commented. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 13:22, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
  • "There is another volcano in the Andahua volcanic field with the name Coropuna, however it is unrelated to the Coropuna volcano" This sentence is a bit awkward, as "Coropuna volcano" would in theory refer to both.
  • "however it is unrelated to the Coropuna volcano" What is meant by unrelated? You say the etymoogy of the word is unknown, so how is it known the meanings are not related?
    "Unrelated" in this case means that they are not the same volcano despite having the same name. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 13:05, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
Could be clarified, since it is in the etymology section, it reads as if it is the etymology that is unrelated. FunkMonk (talk) 16:02, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
Attempted a clarification. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:34, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
  • "that come to Andahua" What is meant by this, the volcanic field, or the valley?
    Town, replaced it. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 13:05, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Stratovolcano is linked at second instead of first mention. I don't get an idea of what "glaciated volcanoes" are. Maybe these terms can be explained in-text, like you do for example lahar.
    Removed the mention as it's already linked in the lead. "Glaciated volcanoes" means that they feature "glaciers"; would a link help?
Yeah, it may seem obvious, but novice readers may think it is some technical term. FunkMonk (talk) 16:02, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
Rewrote this a bit. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:34, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
  • "A sector collapse occurred on the southwestern flank" Any info on when?
    @FunkMonk:Not as far as I could find. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 13:05, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
  • You name "Coropuna Este" in an image caption, but not in the actual paragraph that deals with named summits.
    Now it does. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:34, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
  • "with a more recent estimate amounting to 0.5 square kilometres per year (0.19 sq mi/a),[103] with a brief slowdown observed during the late 1990s and early 2000s." Perhaps say "and" instead of second "with" for variation.
    Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:34, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
  • "In the past, before the first human settlement of the area" Is "in the past" recall needed when the rest of the sentence already makes it clear it is before human settlement?
    @FunkMonk:Not necessarily, as in many places humans lived during or even before peak glaciation. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:34, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
  • "9 centimetres per year" This is UK English, isn't the rest US (meters)? Also, you could maybe just abbreviate to cm, as you do with most other measurements. I see kilometres and metres too some places, should be consistent.
    Huh - I think I did deliberately write this to UK English standards and I don't see "meter" anywhere. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 11:03, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
Ok, I was not sure due to the mixed spelling of archaeo/archeo, and because this is an "American" subject. FunkMonk (talk) 15:13, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
  • "Plates in South America" Specify and link tectonic plates.
    Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 11:03, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
  • "They define a calc-alkalin" What does they refer to? This is the start of a new paragraph, so it is hard to say.
    Specified that it's about volcanic rocks. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 11:03, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
  • "flows were erupted during" Why "were"?
    To me "flows erupted" sounds off as a noun-verb combination. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 11:03, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
  • "may have been erupted" Likewise, why "have been"? There is also "was erupted".
    I am pretty certain that "may erupted" is not proper grammar. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 11:03, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Late glacial is a red link, but it seems there might be articles it could redirect to?
    Not a clear cut one - Late Glacial Interstadial sounds like it's mostly focused on the warming stages. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 11:03, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
    Nevermind; seems like I linked the term earlier in the article; changed it. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 11:07, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
  • "temperatures range 51–18 °C" Range from or between?
    Between; corrected. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 11:03, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
  • You only give in-text dates for studies under "Present day status", not really before as far as I can see, any reason why the dates are needed?
    "Present day" is a moving target, that's why I felt it necessary to have a more precise timing here. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 11:03, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
  • "Birds such as the Andean condor and the vicuña occur in the region" The vicuña is a mammall but this is written as if both are birds.
    Corrected wording. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 11:03, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
  • "Agriculture takes place here, including kiwicha, maize, quinoa and vegetables[207] on terrace fields." Can you say quinoa etc. is agriculture in itself? Isn't rather growing these things agriculture?
    No; thanks for pointing this out. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 11:03, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
  • You say both archaeological and archaeological, should be the latter if this is US English.
    Standardized to UK English. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 11:03, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
  • "The Inca expanded preexisting irrigation and terrace systems" Constructed by who?
    The source does not specify; my impression is that due to the lack of written records the chronology of stuff there is usually poorly known. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 11:03, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
  • "on the southwestern flank of mountain" The mountain?
    Coropuna; appended the pronoun. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 11:03, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Any photos of archeological subjects?
    Couldn't find any freely licensed ones on a quick search. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 11:03, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
  • You are onconsistent in whether you use the Spanish ñ. You both have "La Nina", "El Nino", but also "vicuña" and "Queñua".
    Standardized to using ñ. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 11:03, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
  • "honouring" UK English.
    Aye, probably better to stick it to that spelling. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 11:03, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
  • "Sometimes Coropuna is seen as a male God while Solimana volcano was seen as a female one" Unnecessary change of tense.
    Switched to present for both. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 11:03, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
  • "Today, St Francis of Assisi is sometimes localized at the top of the mountain by pious people" Not sure what is meant by localized here.
    It's supposed to mean that they think it's there; the exact wording in the source is "alighted". Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 11:03, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
  • "61-year old Annie Peck and Hiram Bingham III" This reads as if they were both 61, and is the age even needed?
    I've removed it, not sure that it was necessary really. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 11:03, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
    Removed. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 11:03, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
  • " will persist into the 2120s" The article body only says 2120.
    Corrected. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 11:03, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
  • "the mountain was considered to be one of the most important Inca religious sites in their realm and human sacrifices were offered to the mountain." Last mountain is repetitive, could simply be "it":
    @FunkMonk:Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 11:03, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Support - looking fine to me now, I don't hope this gets archived before it gets its final support, there is still one un-concluded review above. FunkMonk (talk) 15:13, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

Quick comment to delegates from IridescentEdit

Can I ask not to archive this until I've had the time to re-review it. While I haven't yet had the chance to review the current version, I conducted an extensive peer review a few months ago. Assuming everything I raised there has been addressed this is likely to be a support from me so it would be a shame for this nom to drop off just for the want of one more support. ‑ Iridescent 09:49, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

I'm just working through piecemeal, doing one final copy edit, and questioning a few technical elements that  need resolving (see above). This is going to take me a couple more days or so, but the issues found should not be grounds for opposing promotion, assuming they're all addressed. Nick Moyes (talk) 09:55, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
Done Final proofreading now completed. Am happy to support promotion to Featured Article. Nick Moyes (talk) 21:36, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
@Iridescent: I'm looking at this to determine readiness for promotion. Should I expect comments from you at this stage? --Laser brain (talk) 12:11, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
It depends on your time scale. I probably won't be in a position to so anything substantive until at least the 15th. Work on the assumption that I'm a support as I raised all my concerns at PR stage. ‑ Iridescent 2 13:44, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
Not really related to the topic of this header, but since it's the only one I've seen a coordinator post in, there are some comments on this article on this user talk page which were solicited by Nick Moyes. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:48, 14 December 2019 (UTC)
It may help if I summarise the feedback on that other talk page: User:BrucePL is my adoptee, and a retired professor of geology. He commented: ""tight" as in no lose ends such as statements of fact without citations. High-quality article IMHO." Hope this helps. Nick Moyes (talk) 08:38, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
Provisional support from IridescentEdit

Re-reviewing as if I'd never seen it before. This is the version on which I'm commenting. As per my earlier comments I'm taking the technical stuff on faith as I wouldn't know an ignimbrite from a gelifluction.

  • Regarding The mountain was considered to be one of the most important Inca religious sites in their realm, and human sacrifices were offered to it. The volcano also appears in legends., it should probably be clarified in the lead whether the legends are Inca, Spanish or Peruvian, and particularly whether the legends are still current or only known from dusty old records. A lot of people only read the lead, and this point is kind of left hanging.
    This is a hard one as the coverage of the mythology of Coropuna is so dispersed (that's why the pre-FAC version of that section was so bad). The worshipping still occurs today - which I've noted so - but the sources are often not clear about whether the legends were believed in the past or there are still believers. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:08, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
  • I'm not wild about the laundry list of redlinked villages, but I think this is a legitimate use of them; if they're documented permanently inhabited places, then they're all legitimate topics.
  • I think I raised this before, and I'm aware that it's cited, but I'm still confused at how the ice cores taken from it date back 20,000 years if it's erupted repeatedly over that period, as surely the eruptions would have temporarily melted the ice?
    Yes, you raised it before. The thing is that Coropuna is a sizeable volcano and so is its ice cap and the last eruptions were apparently not large enough to impact its entire extent - for comparison Notre-Dame de Paris is much closer to the Louvre than the vents of the Holocene eruptions are to the site of the ice core. I dunno how to explain that in article as there is no sourcing discussing this aspect. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:08, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
Screenshot 2019-12-21 at 20.58.00.png
  • The formatting of the images in the "Recent area and retreat" section is playing havoc in my browser (see right); wrapping around the large right-aligned image means the centered images are each working on a different definition of "center" making the whole thing askew. It could probably do with a judiciously applied {{-}} after "largest such meltwater stream"; I've not done it myself in case there's a particular reason you want the images like this.
    I've attempted to fix the issue by removing the custom size from the large image, as it seems like even at Wikipedia-native resolution the trend lines are noticeable. Downsizing it on my screen did work, but it's my screen. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:08, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Is young-looking aa ʻAʻā lava the correct term, or have you got too many a's somewhere along the line?
    No, that was too many aas, resolved. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:08, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
  • I can't find the source online to check for myself, but IMO you need to explain what Today, St Francis of Assisi is sometimes localized at the top of the mountain by pious people means as it's confusing me. Do they believe that St Francis literally resides on the mountain, that he makes occasional apparitions there, or that prayers directed towards the mountain are somehow relayed on to him in heaven? Do we have any idea why Francis—an Italian with no connection to Peru—has become associated with it?
    @Iridescent:Ugh, I'd so love to exclude that thing altogether. The exact text from the source is Noteworthy in this vein is the fact that the pious among today's Peruvian peasantry believe that Saint Francis has alighted on top of an active volcano, the sacred Mount Coropuna, where the Poverello of Assisi awaits the souls of dead Andeans to fly into his paternal , do you know what "alighted" ~means? That same source is not clear on why the worship came to Peru from Italy, but I figure that Catholicism might have something to do with this. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:08, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
    "Alighted" could mean either that they believe he once paid a visit (either spiritually or literally) to the mountain and then set off again ("The Beatles alighted at JFK Airport and were met by cheering crowds", or that they believe he's taken up residence in some way. It might be worth prodding some Spanish-speaking editors and/or WikiProject Christianity to see if there's anything further about this, as from a non-geological perspective this is probably the most interesting thing about it. (Catholicism has a long tradition of apparitions, but neither myself nor Google has ever heard of anyone claiming an apparition of St Francis before.) ‑ Iridescent 16:19, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
  • A third story states that Coropuna and Solimana castrated a hunter who had killed an animal that was leading a pack transporting precious metals for the mountains is awfully verb-noun-verb-noun-verb-noun, is there any way it can be broken up?
    I've attempted a rewrite, but it may be too close to the source text which is Once a vicufia hunter is said to have shot the leader of a troupe bearing precious metals for the supremely important apus Qoropuna and Solimana. They were so enraged on discovering the dead animal that they castrated the hunter from a distance.. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:08, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Annie Peck and Hiram Bingham III reached several summits of Coropuna in 1911 implies they each reached multiple summits, but Annie Peck raised a banner saying "Votes for Women" on the summit she had ascended, which was slightly lower than the one reached by Bingham implies they only reached one each. Which is correct?
    The latter, by the looks of it; corrected. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:08, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

These are all minor, and assuming the problem with the image placement is resolved I don't have a problem provisionally supporting this. I appreciate Sandy's point below about prose, but ultimately this is such a technical topic that somewhat leaden technical language is unavoidable; cataloging sedimentary layers doesn't lend itself to Brilliant Refreshing Prose. I'm not seeing any fail-worthy MOS violations. ‑ Iridescent 21:26, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

Not readyEdit

Laser brain, I glanced at one section and saw that a MOS review is needed, and also have some prose questions. I cannot do a full review until Saturday. Perhaps a MOS person will get through it before I can. SandyGeorgia (Talk)

With a little more time, I've found several prose issues, and have MOS concerns as well. There is more than I can type up with a quick review; I can return on Saturday. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:11, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
I'll also have some more time on Saturday, but I'll ask for this to be kept open 'til we have Sandy's comments. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:31, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
My apologies, Jo-Jo; I am hosting a party at my house with 200 invited, and really want to spend some time in here. Sorry for the delay, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:31, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
@SandyGeorgia:Eh, I can handle that, it's Christmas time so some IRL interference is to be expected. Now I'll confess that if I have to re-do the FAC again that would be a hassle, but let's see what issues you or someone else might find. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:31, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
A re-do in unlikely; just things that could be addressed before promotion, and some aren't quick fixes. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:17, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
My apologies for the delay. Reviewing this version from December 6. The article is quite well sourced, and shows an impressive amount of research. But the prose is overly dense, at times choppy, and there are formatting and MOS issues. I must Oppose for now; these are samples only and I find more in every section. These kinds of prose problems are time-consuming to write up with examples. I have not yet even begun a complete run-through for cohesiveness or source checking, or to put together my thoughts on the lead. I want to get this part up so that you can begin to work on these smaller pieces; I have run out of time for today, but will continue tomorrow.

I highly recommend emailing and posting to the talk pages of Awickert and Ruslik0, as they are two trusted reviewers on volcano/earthquake articles. While the research and amount of work that goes in to an article of this nature is impressive, the prose can be pulled together so it will read less like a dense collection of facts, and be more of an article that will entice the reader to want to go to or learn more about Coropuna (more on that when I have time to talk about the lead). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:51, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

Prose and MOS combined (because the MOS errors are yielding grammatical problems)
Prose redundancies (some samples, see the useful exercises at User:Tony1):
  • Overall is redundant: Coropuna is the largest and highest volcano in Peru, the highest mountain in the Cordillera Ampato(comma needed here) and Peru's third-highest mountain, overall.
  • Do not know what this "overall" refers to ... in Peru ?? Coropuna was considered to be the most important God (apu) of the region, the second-most important overall(comma needed) and a holy mountain; it was particularly important for the town of Cotahuasi.
  • Many of the instances of the word located are redundant (sample only): "the volcano is located 150 kilometres from ... Arequipa" is the same as "the volcano is 150 kilometres from ... Arequipa"
  • Several in total redundancies, along with unnecessarily complex prose, sample:
There are so many thoughts in that passage; one gets lost in the factoids and misses the highlights. In total is almost always redundant (see Tony exercises). How about:
  • The volcano is part of the Central Volcanic Zone, one of the four zones of the Andean Volcanic Belt. This zone includes 44 stratovolcanoes—some of the highest in the world—and several volcanoes with glaciers.
  • This zone includes 44 stratovolcanoes[23] – including many of the highest in the world[22] – and several volcanoes with glaciers. Not an improvement; we ended up with includes ... including ... and a new note complicating an already convoluted sentence. Jo-Jo, I don't find it productive to go point-by-point on FACs, and will revisit and read the entire article once everything has been addressed with an independent copyedit. There is too much to be corrected here to go point by point on the prose. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:55, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
Searching for another instance of "in total" ... :
Ice cover makes it difficult to discern its structure; in total, about six separate peaks have been counted as well as six not readily recognizable summit craters. In total is redundant. How about:
Ice cover makes it difficult to discern the volcano's structure, but six separate peaks and six not readily recogizable summit craters have been counted.
Done, although I wonder if "but" here might add a WP:SYNTHey quality to the text. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:39, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
The same paragraph has:
It has further been suggested that Coropuna overlies the margin of a buried caldera. Why "further"? Why suggested? How about ...
Coropuna may overlie the margin of a buried caldera, according to <who?>
The source itself uses passive voice and this weasely wording when referring to Noble 1974 ... I'll see if WP:RX has the underlying paper. eta: Found it, but it wasn't very helpful. Imma punt that sentence to a copyeditor. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 21:20, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
Another indication that some redundancy-reducing could help make the article easier to read:
  • In the past, before the first human settlement of the area,[108][109] the ice cap on Coropuna was much larger than today, ...
    What does "in the past" add?
    It's supposed to add a quality of "long time ago". Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:39, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
    But it doesn't, particularly since the sentence doesn't even tell us when human settlement occurred. It is redundant, and clarity is lacking. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:36, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
    OK then. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 21:20, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
Geology, geography and road articles (among others) can be very tricky MOS-wise, because of the density of text that discusses things that are measured, and the need for convert templates. A few things that need to be fixed throughout (and worth pointing out as these constructs are likely to appear throughout your volcano writing):
  • Seen from above, Coropuna has a pear-shaped outline and is a 20 km (12 mi) long ridge with an east-west trend that features four separate domes forming summits and broad saddles between the domes; in addition there is a dome north of the east-west trend. (I took out the convert so the punctuation error is easier to spot.)
It should be east–west ... think of it as running east to west, which indicates an endash, not a hyphen, is needed ... similar occurs throughout the article. A thorough read of MOS:DASH and MOS:HYPHEN may be useful for seeing the problem, and suggestions for how to fix them.
A 20-km-long ridge should be hyphenated. But correctly hyphenating the modifier while also converting from km to miles makes for a mess, and we end up with three hyphen/dashes in one phrase: Seen from above, Coropuna has a pear-shaped outline and is a 20-km-long ridge (12 mi) with an east–west trend that features four separate domes forming summits and broad saddles between the domes; in addition there is a dome north of the east–west trend. (An overly long sentence with a mess of hyphens and dashes.) One suggestion that helps in articles that involve so many numbers is to recast the sentence (and sometimes several sentences around them) to avoid having to hyphenate or dash. Recasting (not saying you should use my version, just a sample of how to re-cast to avoid the convert and hyphenization problem ... also avoiding "features" which is overused in general, and shortening long sentence):
  • Seen from above, Coropuna has a pear-shaped outline. It is a ridge that runs 20 km (12 mi), trending east to west, with four dome-shaped summits separated by broad saddles. There is another dome to the north of the ridge.
Fixing these incorrectly hyphenated modifiers throughout is non-trivial, as it often involves recasting sentences.
Just about that sentence, but I was a little wary of a three-way split as it seems like it'd result in two very short sentences. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:39, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
  • The term lahar can be tricky in volcano articles, because we shouldn't force the reader to click out to get a definition, but we often need to define the term, as it is not altogether common. See how Nevado del Ruiz handles lahar (mud and debris flows) in the lead, getting a basic definition for the layreader out of the way. This article has an awkward flow in that lahars are mentioned before they are defined. The reader has to get well through a long sentence, possibly without knowing what a lahar is, hence what the sentence is about:
Also on the southern side, lahar deposits have been found in the Capiza River valley and appear to relate to Coropuna;[44] at least eight such debris flows have been identified[45] and some lahars have reached the Colca River valley.[46] Lahars are mixtures of water and volcanic rocks that descend the valleys of volcanoes, and are dangerous phenomena owing to their high speed and density, causing large scale destruction and fatalities.[44]
Can the flow be reworked here ?
I've attempted to mend the lahar issue by putting an explanation into a note. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:39, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
When basic terminology and definitions are added to footnotes, that may be an indication that the flow is off; adding more notes make the article more cluttered, and the reader has to bounce around more. Perhaps aim for rephrasing with better flow. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:32, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
Since this particular definition is only a few words long, I have implemented this. However, I think these terms will be a problem - leaving the term out altogether is not appropriate for an article on an academic project and explaining it in text will break the flow. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 21:20, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
  • All of these dashes are wrong: see MOS:DASH (samples only):
Glaciers retreated after the end of the last glacial maximum 20,000 - 18,000 years ago and then re-expanded. During the Lateglacial, a group of moraines formed between the position of the LGM moraines and the position of the recent moraines, with one lateglacial advance dated to either 13,400 - 10,000 or 13,900 - 11,900 years ago.
And these should not be hyphens (another prose issue found when searching only for MOS issues such as dashes and hyphens):
  • Geomorphologically, Coropuna lies at the edge of the Altiplano on the Western Cordillera; in the Central Andes this mountain chain is split into two ranges - the western and the eastern Cordillera - separated by the Altiplano. It is hard to know where to begin, but the entire thing should be rephrased. Altiplano is never defined in the article (and the first occurrence is not linked), so a non-Spanish speaker may not know which is the referenced mountain chain. How about something like this:
  • Coropuna lies at the edge of a high plain (the Altiplano), which separates the central part of the Andes into two mountain ranges: the Western and Eastern Cordillera. Much simpler. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:27, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
This is going to be hard to formulate; punting to a copyeditor. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 21:20, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
See these articles on the overuse of however, which is a good general read. Your use of "however" is not inappropriate, but "however" can be a tipoff that other writing problems are lurking. Look at this passage with the aforementioned hyphenation problem:
  • A 8.5 km (5.3 mi) northwesterly lava flow occupies the Cerro Sepulturayoc valley. It is Coropuna's longest lava flow [144] and has been dated to about 6,000 years ago. However, more recent research has suggested it may have erupted somewhat earlier, during the Late Glacial period.
(Note the space after flow before citation 144 needs to be removed. The 8.5-km northwesterly lava flow needs a hyphen, making a number-dense passage even harder to read. How about something like this:
Coropuna's longest lava flow runs northwesterly for 8.5 km (5.3 mi) in the Cerro Sepulturayoc valley. It had been dated to about 6,000 years ago, but more recent research has suggested it may have erupted somewhat earlier, during the Late Glacial period.
Took a variant of this. That reminds me that when I break up overly long sentences or merge overly short ones, sometimes the break isn't topical - need to remember to keep it topical. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:39, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
A northwesterly lava flow which is Coropuna's longest lava flow[143] occupies the Cerro Sepulturayoc valley and runs for 8.5 km (5.3 mi) This is not an improvement ... repetitive text. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:02, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
Punting this to copyeditor I think; I don't see a particular effective way to make it un-repetitive. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 21:20, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
A different prose issue when examining other instances of "however" (so far, I am bouncing around just searching for common problems and have not read through the entire article in one sitting): "The Peruvian government is now making preparations ... " avoid the use of "now", "currently", "recently" etc on Wikipedia, as those become dated in a dynamic environment. Try, "In year x, the Peruvian government began making preparations ... please check throughout the article for all uses of terms such as "now", "recent", "current". MOS:DATED

To answer Iri above ("this is such a technical topic that somewhat leaden technical language is unavoidable"), these examples are to show that the prose issues are not unavoidable at all; it is the prose that is complicating the topic, and a copyedit is needed.

  • WP:OVERLINK, copper, gold, pasture, please check throughout, samples only
  • ... seracs occur on the glaciers ... don't make the reader click out to get a definition ... seracs (blocks of ice) occur on the glaciers.
    Is it a problem that the source does not explain this? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:39, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
    We don't have to cite basic definitions; it is to aid the reader so they don't have to click out. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:00, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Birds such as the Andean condor and mammals such as the vicuña occur in the region. Is that it? Comprehensive concern. See Nevado del Ruiz flora and fauna, Cerro Azul (Chile volcano) tells us there has been limited study of flora, and Lassen Peak (only a GA, but see Ecology). Perhaps there is no further mention of fauna, but this is surprising.
    It's almost certainly not it, but comprehensive lists of species are sparse plus a lot of them are vague on which places they refer to~and, say, a list of animals which occur in the Colca Canyon would not be really germane to this article. I've added insects, but I dunno about what the best way of coupling this to the next sentence is. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:39, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Valley of the Volcanos: [2] seems to tell us the Valley of the Volcanos is significant ... it could be at least red-linked, and may need more mention in the article.
    Blue-linked it, but from reading the literature I did not get the impression that they have much more relation than being close volcanoes. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:39, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
See also
  • Portals are usually placed in this section (per WP:LAYOUT), but if there is nothing else in See also, it is OK to put them in the next section (Further reading in this case). Your choice (to my eye, a See also section with only portals looks funny).
    'tweren't my addition, but I'll leave it for now. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:39, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
    Agree, best at this juncture not to fiddle with that, considering some drama surrounding portals of late. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:02, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
There is a mess of numbers at Notes A, B, and C; they each contain a string of citations, but no actual source information listed. All of the sources need to be spelled out, or at least the publisher or name mentioned, rather than just a string of numbers. It is not clear why they are all needed; they seem to indicate an extreme controversy followed by a string of citations as seen in POV-plagued articles, and a need to justify "most commonly cited", but we have to click on each citation to determine veracity and see who claims what. Can it be simplified to the highest quality sources, naming them? A and B say it is X at the northwestern dome, while other sources like C and D say it is Y. Similarly spell the sources in Note D.
Oh, I was expecting a problem here. The thing is, that there are many many sources that have given diverging estimates and no clear way to tell which were more dependable nor any overarching source discussing them, so per However, when reputable sources contradict one another and are relatively equal in prominence, describe both points of view and work for balance. in WP:NPOV I ended up including most. That in turn created a footnote salad so it ended up becoming this format. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:39, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
However you solve the underlying issue of diverging sources, we are still bouncing around a string of numbers, requiring two stops for the reader. There are two issues here: the diverging sources, and the format in which they are presented. The whole mess might be better presented in bundled citations. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:07, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
Tried this, but Help:Citation merging apparently assumes that the bundled references are not used elsewhere in the article; is it reasonable to duplicate the entire citation information for the bundled reference. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 21:20, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
Impressive list of sources. Citation issues, not exhaustive, just quickly saw:
  • You can use the parameter trans-title in citation templates to give English readers the article name (hence an idea what it's about).
  • Incomplete: "Coropuna". Global Volcanism Program. Smithsonian Institution. The date seems to be 2013, and there is no accessdate given. (I see Brianboulton had pointed that out, but it remains unaddressed.)
  • Is this 2001 or 2011 ?? Mariño, Jersy; Cabrera, Marquinho; Valdivia, David; Aguilar, Rigoberto; Manrique, Nélida; Thouret, Jean Claude; Edwards, Benjamin; Kochtitzky, Willian (201) ... I can't find the date on the map (too small to read!)
  • Mixed date formats on sources:
    • Bullard, Fred M. (1 December 1962) but Campos, Néstor (2015-12-30), and Menaker, Alexander (2019-01-03). Check all.
  • Why is WISE in all caps? WISE, James M. (2004).
    Got these, but to me an access date does display. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:39, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
    There are still mixed formats on dates. See User:SandyGeorgia/common.js for a script that you can install in your own userspace and can be used to fix these. Would you like me to run the script? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:19, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
    See above: would you like me to run a script to correct the dates? There are also hyphens in page ranges on citations that should be WP:ENDASHes. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:36, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
    @SandyGeorgia:Yes, please. It doesn't seem to work for me. I think I got some of the endashes though. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:58, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
    I ran the script to make date formats consistent:[3] please check over that edit carefully, as scripts such as this one can sometimes mess up other text unintentionally. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:49, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Here is a cut-and-paste of what shows (no accessdate). You are using a specialized GVP template, which may have an error. Perhaps you could generate your own citation template. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:27, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
^ Jump up to: a b c d e f "Coropuna". Global Volcanism Program. Smithsonian Institution.
^ Jump up to: a b c d e f g h i j k Campos 2015, p. 2.
  • I don't get this; the citation templates correctly show the access date and the code at {{Cite GVP}} does not show any obvious bug... Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 21:20, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
    I found (finally!) and corrected the error on the accessdate in the GVP template: [4] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:49, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
  • WP:ELNO, not include a link "that does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article would contain if it became a featured article. In other words, the site should not merely repeat information that is already or should be in the article." One is a book, not a link, so might be used in Further reading, if really needed, but since it is a guide for climbers, what does it contain that might be needed in the article? Some of the External links are student theses. What is order of these links (why not alphabetical)? What do all of these External links add that is not already contained in the article, and how can the article be comprehensive if there is that much information that is not covered? Same questions for Further reading; what do these provide that is not already in the article (particularly when in Spanish)? Ziólkowski listed in Further reading seems to be the same as used in sources, so should not be listed there.
Perhaps Awickert or Ruslik0 will be able to do some copyediting before I come back tomorrow. Regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:51, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
Unfortunately I am too busy now. Ruslik_Zero 20:50, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
Jo-Jo, I just noticed above that Brian had pointed out the all caps in author names, but you missed those. I also saw your note that your keyboard did not have the WP:ENDASH and WP:EMDASH; they are right below the edit window, just above where you type in an edit summary. There is a line there that starts with "Insert", and the first thing after that is an endash, the next is an emdash. You just position the cursor and push the button. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:53, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
@SandyGeorgia:I've taken that advice and emailed the two editors you recommended. Beyond that I've stripped out some "located"s, "in the past"s and "overall"s and also did the dash issues using the dash templates, but MOS:DASH is far from easily memorizable so another look-at would probably be needed. Took out some "recents" and left others in places when we are talking about 10,000 years ago vs. 21st century and other such definitive time spans. Also dealt with some overlinking. Is there a way to quickly standardize the date formats? Sorry, can't get to the External Links and Further Reading section just yet. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:39, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
Also note that we edit conflicted, it might be that I overwrote some earlier addendums from you when I fixed it. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:39, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
Added back in one missing piece. On "MOS:DASH is far from easily memorizable"; the basic distinction between endashes, emdashes, and hyphens is not difficult and does not need to be memorized. (The text at the MOS page is long because of examples.) Understanding the difference is essential to writing an FA on number-dense topics such as volcanoes, earthquakes, roads, geology, geography. The main thing to realize is that a hyphen is not a dash; see also WP:HYPHENs, and going through all of User:Tony1's editing exercises may help. Alternately, you can find a collaborator who will help you by checking these before you approach FAC, but an experienced nominator should bring MOS-ready articles to FAC. The bigger problem is that the incorrect (missing) hyphens are a grammatical problem, obscured by the convert templates, and many of your sentences could benefit from re-casting to avoid the hyphens anyway. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:42, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
OK, WP:HYPHEN is much clearer than the DASH thing. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 21:20, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
Continuing ... still haven't done a complete read through, just searching text for common issues. "In addition", "also", and "as well" are often redundant. Searching on "in addition" produces one sentence with both:
  • In addition, the Upper Sencca ignimbrite, the Lower Sencca ignimbrite[154] and the Chuquibamba (Huaylillas[155]) ignimbrite[156] may have originated here as well; ...
  • A second "in addition" occurrence:
A number of towns could be threatened by lahars and, according to the 2007 census, 11,0481 people lived in the provinces that span Coropuna and lie downstream of it. Lahars could theoretically reach all the way down to the coast, although there is no evidence for past mudflows of such size. In addition, infrastructure such as roads, antennas and small hydropower plants are found in the general area. This can be considerably shortened with a re-write, and the flow is off. I cannot access full text of sources. How about:
Although there is no evidence of past mudflows of such size, lahars could reach as far as the coast, affecting a number of towns and infrastructure such as roads, antennas and small hydropower plants. According to the 2007 census, 11,0481 people lived in the provinces that span Coropuna and lie downstream of it.
SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:44, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

Did that rewrite, but the conjunctives I'll punt to a copyeditor - to me a number of sentences read like a concatenation of statements w/o them and that, to me, is often inferior flow/writing. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 21:20, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
Blatantly copying text from Reidgreg at Talk:Beaune Altarpiece, in multiple instances, "consider using |spell=in in the convert template to produce: three metres (10 ft). We generally like to write-out numbers from zero to nine (MOS:SPELL09), but to use numerals with abbreviated units." For example, in the lead, "The mountain above 5 kilometres (3.1 miles) elevation is unvegetated, but below this altitude there are various vegetation belts which ... " Also avoid repetition ... How about something like, "there is no vegetation at the higher altitudes, but below five kilometres (3.1 miles) elevation, there are ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:14, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
Got some of these. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 21:20, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
  • See this sample edit for another MOS fix needed throughout. The {{nowrap}} template is used to keep all of that from breaking across a line, and is easier to use than WP:NBSP in a plus/minus construct. This is needed throughout. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:53, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

Comments by Fowler&fowlerEdit

Dear @Jo-Jo Eumerus: Hello. I am trying to experiment with a critique written from the POV of a newcomer to the topic and focusing on the lead. For that reason, I have not read the rest of the article. Nor have I read other reviews. There may be existing conventions in WP Volcanology, Geology, or Geophysics (I'm not even sure such projects exist), so feel free to tell me when my suggestions clash with theirs. There may also be MOS conventions on using wikilinks instead of descriptors, whether single words or phrases, so please tell me about them as well. Today is a busy day. I will be critiquing a sentence at a time as when I find time. Please allow 24 hours to elapse for me to make my comments, and tweak them, and only then respond here. Thanks, and best regards. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 20:31, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

  • Sentence 1: Coropuna is a dormant stratovolcano in the southern Peruvian Andes that lies within the Central Volcanic Zone.
    • When you present two separate links Peruvian and Andes, together, you create the expectation in the reader that in juxtaposition they have significant information about the Peruvian Andes. But they don't. The Peru section of Andes is just a list of peaks; the geography section of Peru is very general. (Compare with the Britannica article on: Aconcagua, which is very simply written.) You need to tell us something more basic and accessible in the first sentence. It is the same with a dormant stratovolcano. There is too much specialist information too early. We cannot trade narrative for a list of links. I cannot stress this more.
    • "Within," in current use, has the meaning of "not outside." What is so significant about the Central Volcanic Zone that a claim to lying in it in an entirety matters?
    • The definite article is certainly applied to unique or common geographical entities: the world, the ocean, the Andes, the countryside, and so forth; however, more generally, it is applied to nouns which are or have become, as a result of previous mention, part of the author's and the reader's shared world. That is not the case yet for "Central Volcanic Zone."
    • Could the sentence be changed to: Nevado Corpuna ("Nevado," Spanish, lit. "snow-covered") is a perennially snowbound volcanic complex, with several conical summits, in the Andes mountains of Peru?" (For that is what the links describe other than the dormancy and stratification, whose mention can wait until later in the lead. The "Nevado" adds an extra mention of snow. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 20:31, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Sentence 2: It has several summits, the highest of which reaches an altitude of 6,377 metres (20,922 feet) above sea level.
    • This second sentence is another reason that the first should be changed in the manner I advocate. For as they stand, the second sentence, with a mention of several summits, after the first as mentioned a single volcano, comes as a surprise.
    • Could we change it to two sentences that combine similar themes from the lead: "The complex extends over an area of 240 square kilometers (92.6 square miles), its highest summit reaching an altitude of 6,377 metres (20,922 feet) above sea level. The complex is dormant, its current activity occurring exclusively in the form of hot springs?" More later. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 04:33, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
  • @Jo-Jo Eumerus:. I don't have the time now for a sentence-by-sentence analysis. I have rewritten some parts, but mostly re-arranged your lead, changing some of the links. At my level of understanding, I believe it gives it greater thematic and chronological coherence. You are welcome to accept some, many, or none of my suggestions. I will not be supporting or opposing as I haven't read enough of the article to form an opinion. If the 1850 date for the retreat of glaciers is incorrect, please correct it. All the best. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:08, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

Nevado Coropuna ("Nevado," Spanish, lit. "snow-covered") is a dormant volcanic complex located in the Andes mountains of southeast-central Peru whose upper reaches consist of several perennially snowbound conical summits. The complex extends over an area of 240 square kilometers (92.6 square miles), its highest summit reaching an altitude of 6,377 metres (20,922 feet) above sea level. It is covered by a thick ice cap, the most extensive in the tropical zone, with several outlet glaciers. Below five kilometres (3.1 miles) elevation, there are various vegetation belts which include trees, peat bogs, grasses and also agricultural areas and pastures.

The Coropuna is a stratovolcano. It is composed chiefly of ignimbrites and lava flows on a basement formed by earlier ignimbrites and lava flows, some of which may have been formed by the eruptions of Coropuna itself. Coropuna has been active for at least five million years, with the bulk of the current cone having been formed during the Quaternary. Coropuna has had two or three Holocene eruptions 2,100 ± 200 and either 1,100 ± 100 or 700 ± 200 years ago which generated lava flows, plus an additional eruption which may have taken place some 6,000 years ago. Current activity occurs exclusively in the form of hot springs.

Coropuna is at a distance of 150 kilometres (93 miles) from the city of Arequipa, whose historical center was declared a UNESCO World Heritage Site in 2000. [1] People have lived on Coropuna for millennia. The mountain was regarded as sacred by the Inca and several archaeological sites have been discovered there, including the Inca sites of Maucallacta and Acchaymarca. The mountain was considered to be one of the most important Inca religious sites in their realm; human sacrifices were offered to it and the mountain is worshipped to this day. The volcano also appears in legends.

Coropuna's ice cap, which during the last glacial maximum had expanded to a size of over 500 square kilometres (190 sq mi), has been in retreat since 1850. Estimates published in 2018 imply that the ice cap will persist until about 2120. The retreat of the Coropuna glaciers threatens the water supply of tens of thousands of people, and interaction between volcanic activity and glacial effects has generated mudflows that could be a hazard to surrounding populations. Because of this, the Peruvian geological agency, INGEMMET, monitors Coropuna and has published a hazard map for the volcano. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:08, 23 December 2019 (UTC)


  1. ^ UNESCO (2000). "Historical Center of the City of Arequipa".
Very readable; that was a considerable effort. I was waiting for the body of the article to come together better, but had intended to ask a question about the lead once everything was in better shape. Coropuna is a Peruvian tourist site; many of the sources discuss what sorts of activities and sights bring people to the area. I would feel better about the lead if it gave me some idea of why I would want to know more about this volcano, as in, why do tourists go there, what do they do, what is special, etc. I am not sure this is well developed yet in the body of the article, but the lead focuses on geological factoids rather than giving me an idea of why this place is worth seeing and knowing about. I suspect the body needs to expand to cover more of this territory to satisfy "1c, comprehensive", and one sentence can be added to the lead when that is done. Some of the excessive external links might be useful. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:15, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
Thanks. I had no idea the complex itself was a tourist destination, though I suspected it because of the Inca sites. What you say sounds very reasonable. Yes, the geological factoids need the kind of rephrasing that is assessed to be accurate by an expert but makes the average reader keep reading. That may require a high-level understanding that I don't have. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:36, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
@SandyGeorgia and Fowler&fowler:That proposed lead rewrite seems OK, although I'd leave the part about Arequipa being on the UNESCO list out. Regarding tourism, I guess the problem is that most of the sources on tourism and Coropuna are not reliable or mention the topic just in passing. That's not uncommon for this region; even for the better documented El Tatio#Tourism the section is not that good. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 18:56, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
Yes, I see the Peruvian government tourism page is ... not very well developed. Does the source mentioned in External links (Biggar, John (2005). The Andes: A Guide for Climbers. Andes.) ... which should be moved to Further reading, if justified here ... have anything? My searches so far have turned up lots of interesting verbiage and indications of what brings tourists and mountaineers to the area, but all in commercial sites or blogs. Can you get anything from this? It's not that I'm after tourism information per se, but even if you cannot turn up more sources that discuss and describe what attracts people to the area, I'd like the lead to give us more of a desire to, if not want to visit the area, at least want to read the rest of the article to discover more about Coropuna. For instance, Bryce Canyon National Park (which has an underdeveloped lead and could do much better on this, but ...) tells us, "The red, orange, and white colors of the rocks provide spectacular views for park visitors." Mount St. Helens has a "Climbing and recreation" section, but the article has the same problem I am trying to overcome (it focuses on the geology while other content is undeveloped). I am hoping, even if new sources can't be found, that whatever we do have can be used to entice the reader to read beyond the lead (WP:LEAD, "It gives the basics in a nutshell and cultivates interest in reading on.") These volcanoes/mountains are more than their geology. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:21, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
@SandyGeorgia:The Biggar book does not have much information and that article seems to mention Coropuna just once. This one might have some stuff that you seek, though. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 21:54, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
Then Biggar should probably be removed from External links (which generally need pruning). Can you find anything here, or anything describing the physical in Annie Peck's description of her ascent? [5] And Incan name huaca is mentioned here, but not in the article, and there is some description. (It's not clear to me if huaca=coropuna.)[6] Only a limited preview is available here, but it possibly suggests that one of the attractions for mountaineers is that, although high, the mountains in the region are easily climbed. This has some tourism info; hanging bridges are enticing. Back to my earlier suggestion that Valley of the Volcanoes attracts people to the region: 1001 Natural wonders you must see before you die.

There is no need for you to respond to me on each of these possibilities: generally, I am hoping the lead can provide a glimpse into the <beauty, uniqueness, ruggedness, recreation> or whatever it is that attracts people to the area, and entices us to read further into the article. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:39, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

Oppose from ComplexRationalEdit

I'm also new to this topic, and only have done a few GA reviews or provided talk page feedback, so this really is an outsider POV.

At first glance, sourcing looks good—the references look reliable and extensive—but in the first section alone after the lead, I already found several prose issues that need a full review before criterion 1a is fulfilled. These issues are certainly surmountable, but this FAC has already been open more than two months and these are not necessarily quick fixes, so I'm opposing to give more time to do a thorough review.

  • Perhaps most importantly, an WP:ENGVAR ought to be established and consistently applied, e.g. both "practise" (en-GB) and "localize" (en-US) are present in the article. This is also very important to establish consistent comma usage and copyedit. I see several places where commas belong in en-US but not necessarily other variants, but I will not insert them if the chosen ENGVAR renders them unnecessary.
  • The volcano can be reached on paved roads that come to the town of Andahua – needs to be rewritten, "come" does not work here (we are not in Andahua) and "go" is not much better
  • and is only 100 kilometres (62 mi) from the Pacific Ocean. – no need for "only" as it alters the POV
  • A number of villages surround the volcano, from northwest clockWise around the mountains these are:clockwise is not written like this, and I do not understand why this list of miscellaneous villages is present at all, much less why they're ordered clockwise
All instances of "clockWise" fixed. ComplexRational (talk) 15:40, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
  • but mining of precious metals takes place with copper and gold being prospected. – this seems unnecessarily verbose and its relation to the previous clause is weak; it could be shortened to something like "but copper and gold mining are also..." or simply integrated into the first clause as another important economic activity.
  • Important volcanoes in southern Peru are from northwest to southeast – again, this listing looks indiscriminate: why are they important? why these? I think we're better off without this bit.
  • twenty km – per MOS:NUMNOTES, this should be in figures; the article should be checked to make sure this usage is consistent and correct
  • Also on the southern side, – as an example, I would insert a comma after also, but this is possibly subject to ENGVAR.
  • Lahars are dangerous phenomena owing to their high speed and density, causing large scale destruction and fatalities. – from this, readers unfamiliar with the subject still will not know what lahars are. I added a link, but a one-sentence explanation would be helpful here.
  • ClockWise around Coropuna, these includeanother instance of "ClockWise" and a list without clear context
  • Coropuna rises two km – as above, should be figures
  • three point five km – I won't ask how this got in here, but it is really troubling to look at
  • such as the Chuquibamba landslide, which took place over the last 120,000 years in the form of multiple collapse events within a fault-controlled basin. – After breaking the run-on sentence, I'd recommend elaborating more on this. Are there more significant examples?
  • glaciers, [78] and – the extra space is really a minor thing by itself, but formatting errors such as these give me the impression that the article was not fully reviewed, copyedited, or prepared before this FAC
  • The ice cap also features ice falls and dangerous lakes. Mudflows (lahars) originated from the ice cap and left deposits at the bottom of valleys. – dangerous has a non-neutral connotation (so I recommend elaborating more neutrally or removing altogether), and this transition from present to past tense reads rather awkwardly (I'd reorder to something like "There are also deposits resulting from lahars originating from the ice cap...").

If you'd like, I could provide further comments (these are only from the first few sections), but judging from these, I simply don't think the prose of this article is up to standards yet. Perhaps give it a bit more time to fix or take it to GOCE before renominating – it would take considerable work and a much longer list of comments to ensure that the prose is ready in this FAC. ComplexRational (talk) 22:12, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

@ComplexRational:Regarding some questions - bit late here so I can't provide any more - this is supposed to be BrEng I think; regarding the "clockWise" that's a typo and I can't find where it was added but it needs to be "clockwise" of course. A list of towns around a volcano seems like a reasonable piece of information to include, and a list of other recently active volcanoes is IMO also good context for a FAC. The spelling out of units or using figures ... that's something I was inspired of (probably mistakenly so) by SandyGeorgia's last comment two sections above ... I think that reverting back to the figure form is better.
@Jo-Jo Eumerus: MOS:RETAIN would suggest en-US or en-OED (one of the first non-stub versions [7] uses "organized", but if there is no disagreement on how to proceed (seeing as an ENGVAR is not used consistently throughout and I don't think any has a strong tie to Peru), we can convert the whole article to en-GB. ComplexRational (talk) 16:00, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
I would probably settle for en-GB - there aren't any particular WP:TIES here - if there is no disagreement. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:09, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
I dunno if more comments would help here ... need to sleep over this, I believe. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 23:06, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
Jo-Jo, I do see considerable misapplication of WP:MOSNUM following my suggestion on the convert template. Perhaps you are not familiar with MOS:SPELL09? With ten or so FAs, I assumed you were, or I would have been more specific: in Wikipedia's manual of style, we usually spell out numbers between 0 and 9. It looks like you converted all numbers to words rather than digits. To write in a number-dense topic like volcanoes, it is helpful to be familiar with WP:MOSNUM (it's impossible to keep up with all of it, but spelling out 0 to 9, unless there is a list where consistency applies, is a starting point.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:15, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
OK, this time I think they are correct. I'll admit, the MOS clauses are so long and so full of irrelevant fluff that I find it hard to follow them. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 23:24, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

How to continue thisEdit

So I've somewhat obliquely asked this question here as well, but as this is the FAC page it's probably better to ask it here: ComplexRational and SandyGeorgia, do you think that the prose problems you've raised here can be fixed within the course of a FAC, or do you think it'd be better to withdraw and renominate when they are resolved? MOS issues (usually) do not take much effort to fix and the sources Sandy presented above would not need much work to incorporate, but I am not so confident on the prose aspect. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:58, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

We have made good progress on the MOS issues (and I regret that no one pointed out those common MOS items before, as they are so necessary in number-dense geology and geography articles). (Although the first three items in Brianboulton's list from 20 October were not addressed until today, after I pointed them out again.)

I agree that my comprehensiveness concerns can probably be easily addressed. It is still surprising that there is no better content in the flora and fauna department, and no more information about the tourism, recreation and mountaineering aspects as opposed to the geological-- more exhaustive book searches may turn up more information. The extensive (WP:ELNO) list of External links is still quite a concern, and it is incomprehensible to me that no reviewer pointed this out: all of those links need to be checked to see if anything there aids in 1c, Comprehensiveness; if not, they should be pruned from the list.

But I have not even attempted a full read-through to address prose issues like the samples given by ComplexRational, Fowler&fowler and me. Fowler&fowler appears to have not looked beyond the lead, and I am unsure that his new, experimental reviewing method will help you become a better FA writer, as he did the lead for you without commenting further on prose issues. ComplexRational provided samples from only one section.

So, I fear that the answer to your question is apparent on the page: even though a number of editors reviewed, it seems that earlier reviewers did not fully engage, and later reviewers would have to do too much work to pull all of the prose up to standard.

I don't know what to suggest except to note that many of the past successful geology FACs had multiple nominators. Collaborating with other editors who are good at fixing prose and MOS issues, to complement your incredible sourcing and research work, is probably a good way to go, and ComplexRational has offered to work off-FAC with you. You can post to my talk page anytime you need MOS fixes (I hate those pingie thingies), but I am not always around; if I am, I am always willing to help. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:06, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

Expanded text above, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:14, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
Hi @SandyGeorgia and Jo-Jo Eumerus: I did the lead because I was under the impression that there was a hurry to make a final decision on the article, and I was strapped for time myself. There was another problem: the issues weren't necessarily those of syntax within a sentence but of content organization. I can certainly do the sentence by sentence analysis if Jo-Jo can wait a little. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:52, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
@Jo-Jo Eumerus: Your question, "do you think that the prose problems you've raised here can be fixed within the course of a FAC, or do you think it'd be better to withdraw and renominate when they are resolved," bears the marks of sound moral principle. It demonstrates not just attention to producing something of quality, but also a willingness to slow down one's personal ambition for a bronze star in favor of speeding up the FAC process. All too often when, in the past, I have advocated that a page be withdrawn, worked on further, and renominated in a month's or two's time, I have heard from the nominator that the comment is not actionable. I am happy to quickly skim the article to answer your question. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:27, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
Awesomeness Award to both of you. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:41, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
@Jo-Jo Eumerus: I have skimmed the article. I think it needs work. As @SandyGeorgia: has remarked, you have done excellent sourcing, but the article lacks an even, consistent, narrative voice. It seems as if different portions are written by different people. In many parts of the article, there is little narrative, only a list of blue links. There are also redundancies that confuse the reader.
I think you should withdraw the article and work on it further. One of the first things you should do is to rewrite it in your own voice and in your own understanding of the sources, and not worry too much about prose (which can be fixed easily later). There are two general principles that I follow: (a) start first with an outline that is derived entirely from tertiary sources, such as scholarly encyclopedias or companions, well-worn textbooks, and review articles. This ensures that your narrative is WP:DUE, (b) Now expand the article by using these previous sources further or secondary sources (journal articles, monographs, news media). But don't stray from the outline. In your writing, replace lists as much as you can by general descriptions interspersed with examples and vignettes. That is the best way of ensuring that you have understood the material and are summarizing it in your own words. An encyclopedia necessarily creates a precis of the source material at a level that is comprehensible to an educated layperson. The article is not there yet. But you have already mastered the major difficulty I refer to in my previous post. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:37, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
(edit conflict) @Jo-Jo Eumerus, SandyGeorgia, and Fowler&fowler: I stand by my original comment that an off-FAC collaboration is probably the best way to proceed, so as not to drag this FAC timewise or lengthwise and hopefully get this article through FAC2 with minimal concerns. I understand that there is considerable work to be done, and I am still willing to further engage and review the article's prose (with Fowler&fowler) and structure section-by-section once all the heavy content work is finished. Small MOS tweaks can come later, but we should at least make sure that nothing in WP:SMOS (which I believe condenses only the most important MOS points) needs attention. ComplexRational (talk) 15:49, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
(edit conflict)Thanks for the offer, Fowler&fowler,. SandyGeorgia Regarding the external links, that's mostly theses which as noted in WP:SCHOLARSHIP are difficult to handle as sources, as much of the stuff in them is not necessarily thoroughly vetted info.
@WP:FAC coordinators: Based on the comments here, it seems like this FAC probably cannot be brought to promotion-ready within a reasonable timeframe and thus I'd like to ask for a withdrawal/archival if possible. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:44, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
Will do, tks Jo-Jo. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:40, 25 December 2019 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.