Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Uturuncu/archive1

< Wikipedia:Featured article candidates
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 promoted by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 29 August 2021 [1].

Uturuncu edit

Nominator(s): Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 20:10, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a volcano in Bolivia which was glaciated in the past and is the highest summit in the region. It'd be unremarkable - except that satellite images show that since 1992 it has been inflating due to the ascent of magma at depth. Because it's in an area with numerous supervolcanoes, some folks think this inflation may be the prelude to a giant eruption although a regular eruption is certainly possible too. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 20:10, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Images appear to be freely licensed. However, I would suggest that you label the infobox image with the angle at which it was taken (north face, from the southwest, etc.) rather than the date, unless the volcano changed drastically since 2006. (t · c) buidhe 09:27, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    That's done. AFAIK the apparel of the volcano has not drastically changed during the past 15 years. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:30, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments from Moisejp edit

Hi Jo-Jo. I've done one read-through so far and the article seems in pretty good shape. Now I'm working my way through the second read-through and I will add points as I notice them. By the way, I don't know much about volcanoes, so this is a layman's review.

  • (Minor comment) Geography and geomorphology: "since then scientific interest has increased, including a reconnaissance mission carried out by scientists in 2003". Would something like "scientific interest and activity" possibly work better? For me "reconnaissance mission" doesn't quite seem to mesh with "scientific interest" ("interest included a reconnaissance mission" doesn't seem precise).
    Seems OK to me; done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:37, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Structure: Halfway through the first paragraph the subject changes to be about lava flows. Would it be better to break off into a new paragraph, either as a new second paragraph or possibly join it with the existing second paragraph about lava flows? Moisejp (talk) 04:38, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:37, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Regional: "and includes Uturuncu.[1] Aside from Uturuncu, it includes about 69 Holocene volcanoes in a high elevation region,[40] including the potentially active volcanoes..." Three instances of "include" in a short space. One idea is if you reword the second one that would also serve to break up the other two. Moisejp (talk) 04:50, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Replaced one mention. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:00, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Minor comment) Composition and magma genesis: "within a rhyolite groundmass[j],[68]". Should both [j] and [68] be after the comma? I'm not used to seeing them split up like this, but if you have logic for doing it this way, that's fine. :-) Moisejp (talk) 05:06, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I prefer to put the note right after the word it's about, while the source applies to the sentence so it goes after punctuation. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:00, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Glaciation: "Modern Uturuncu features no glaciers;[4] however, perennial ice was reported in 1956,[37] remnants of snow in 1971,[79] the existence of sporadic snow fields in 1994,[3] and the summit area is occasionally ice-covered." The last part ("and the summit area is occasionally ice-covered") stands out because "was reported" is the stated or implied verb for the other three parts. If it was me I would make sure all four parts followed a parallel structure or else break the fourth part off to be truly separate (maybe with a semi-colon). Moisejp (talk) 05:11, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I honestly don't like that sentence much but it's all about the ice and snow cover, so I am not sure that splitting it makes sense. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:00, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have finished my second read-through and am happy to support. Cheers, Moisejp (talk) 06:26, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments from Volcanoguy edit

  • Lead: "emplaced about 10,000 cubic kilometres (2,400 cu mi) in sometimes very large eruptions". What was emplaced? Tephra? Lava? Both?
    Explained. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:50, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Structure: "separated by a saddle that is 5,700 metres (18,700 ft) high". Saddle should probably be linked to saddle (landform) for those who don't know what a saddle is.
    Linked. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:50, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Structure: "85 cubic kilometres (20 cu mi)[14]–50 cubic kilometres (12 cu mi)" → 85–50 cubic kilometres (20–12 cu mi).
    Not sure if that works, as it's one source for each value. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:50, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Local: "The Vilama (8.41 million years old) and Guacha (5.65 million years old) ignimbrites". Link ignimbrites here first since this is where the term is first used.
    There is now a link in the lead. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:50, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Geologic history and Altiplano-Puna volcanic complex: "including several so-called "supereruptions" with volcanic explosivity indexes of 8 at Cerro Guacha, La Pacana, Pastos Grandes and Vilama". Volcanic Explosivity Index is capitalized.
    Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:50, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Composition and magma genesis: "the first two appear to be derived from country rocks". Link "country rocks" to Country rock (geology).
    Linked. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:50, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

All this from my first pass. Support. Volcanoguy 22:23, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Source review edit

Spotchecks not done. Version reviewed

  • FN2 has a location but no publisher; most other refs are the opposite. Ditto Schäbitz. Check throughout for consistency
  • FNs 2 and 3 and 61 are entries in the same source; why are they so differently formatted?
    Corrected this. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:15, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • FN10: link returns error - is there an available version?
    Yes, it's added. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:15, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Be consistent in when you include retrieval date
    I think that I've applied them all to non-book, non-journal sources. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:15, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Why for example does FN20 not have one? It is neither a book nor a journal. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:18, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    It's added now. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 14:28, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some Springer refs specify which branch is being cited, but others don't - why?
    That's the vagaries of the citation tools. Standardized to use only Springer. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:15, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why include page ranges for single-page refs?
    Hmm, not sure I understand what you are referring to. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:15, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    For example, FN72 has "pp. 661–661" - why not just "p. 661"? There are several refs that do this. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:18, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Looks like this was another citation tool vagary, resolved it. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 14:28, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fn81 has a formatting error in the title
    Fixed. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:15, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • FN92 includes (Full text via ResearchGate.), but none of the links go to that site?
    One does now. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:15, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • FN95 returns error
    Removed it and the content that relied on that source. I am oh so tired of website operators who cannot do proper link maintenance. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:15, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fn145 doesn't match formatting of similar refs
    Removed that too, it wasn't adding anything. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:15, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • How are you ordering Sources?
    Alphabetic after the last name of the author. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:15, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Please double-check - Schäbitz is currently listed before Kern. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:18, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Corrected that one. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 14:28, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ahlfeld: is there an OCLC number for this? Nikkimaria (talk) 02:14, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Not as far as I can tell. Note, by the way, that I've taken an opportunity to attach some additional sources that I couldn't process earlier. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:15, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support from TRM edit

  • "lies in the San Pablo de Lipez municipality" Lipez is missing a diacritic.
    Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 13:18, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I know now how this works but it would be remiss of me not to mention the severely awkward positioning of a lot of the references.
    Aye, but as mentioned before the win of readability comes at the expense of verifiability. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 13:18, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Well as long as they're moved after the review, that's fine. The readers don't need this jarring and awkward reference placement, they are capable of waiting to the end of the sentence or nearby punctuation to find what's verifying each claim. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 13:47, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "is almost uninhabited" people/animals/both?
    I think most people would interpret it as people, which is correct. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 13:18, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "a tourism target" I don't think we need to link common terms link "tourism".
    Delinked. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 13:18, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Uturuncu,[13] a" why is that being referenced there?
  • "a former sulfur mine is " comma after mine?
    Rewritten. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 13:18, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Non-breaking space between 50 and million. Check all others.
    I think I got them. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 13:18, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "among tephra deposits" what are those?
    Added explainer. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 13:18, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "With 6,008 metres (19,711 ft) elevation" maybe horses for courses but I would say "At an elevation of..."
    Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 13:18, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "terrain[23][15] and" ref order.
    Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 13:18, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Link levees.
    Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 13:18, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The broad edifice..." which broad edifice?
    Clarified. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 13:18, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and colluvium[d].[27]" grim pre/post-punctuation placement.
    Shifted it. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 13:18, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The Rio Grande de Lipez flows" Rio is missing a diacritic.
    Not sure that it is needed on Rio, but added it to Lipez. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 13:18, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the South America Plate has" isn't that normally called the South American Plate?
    Yes, so fixed. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 13:18, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't we normally abbreviate million years old to myo in these kinds of articles?
    Maybe? Spelling out doesn't hurt. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 13:18, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The first time perhaps, but the subsequent dozen just bloat the prose. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 18:05, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Did this. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 20:46, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • " (0.62–12.43 mi);[52][47]" order. Check others.
    Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 13:18, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "groundmass[j],[75] " again, just horrible.
  • "associated with Heinrich event 1" what was that?
  • No need to link words like "moisture".
    Changed. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 13:18, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Bølling–Allerød warming uses an en-dash.
    Corrected? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 13:18, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "climate records" is linked but red. Is this useful?
    Once someone makes the page, yes. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 13:18, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "0.00006 cubic kilometres per year (1.4×10−5 cu mi/a)[109]-0.00027 cubic kilometres per year (" en-dash needed here but can we not switch to cubic metres for such minuscule amounts (in cubic km terms).
    Thing is that in this kind of system kilometres are a more useful frame of reference. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 13:18, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't agree I'm afraid, no-one can imagine what a cubic km looks like, let alone 0.00006 cubic km, or worse 1.4x10-5 cu mi/a..... The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 18:03, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    That's done as well. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 20:46, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "hydrothermal system is" no better target for this than a red link?
    Not yet. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 13:18, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "InSAR imaging" explain this before using the abbreviation.
    Spelled it out. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 13:18, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Altiplano-Puna" should use en-dash, this appears many times.
    Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 13:18, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can you explain what ML is instead of just using it?
    Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 13:18, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That's all I have on a quick read. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 15:41, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Hi TRM, how's it looking? Gog the Mild (talk) 17:46, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Hey. Horrendous reference placement continues to be a problem. It's not something I expect to see in professional or academic papers, so I don't expect to see it here. There's no reason that references can't wait until the end of the sentence or next punctuation unless they're being used for direct quotes etc. It diminishes what is a very good article to be continually interrupted with clunky references placement. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 18:03, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I've done the other things. On the ref format, I still think the price to pay in terms of verifiability is too high. Also, since we only have 3 comments so far, someone could still come with issues that require a source checking, and as I've seen at Laguna del Maule shuffling references around can drastically increase the amount of work needed to verify content. Moving mid-sentence references (i.e these not preceded by punctuation) might work as a compromise, though. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 20:46, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
TRM? Gog the Mild (talk) 16:55, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think the price to pay of verifiability is too high at all. Claims made in a single sentence can be verified by citations at the end of the sentence or after the next appropriate punctuation. Right now, this doesn't feel professional at all, it looks and reads like a disruptive mess. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 17:01, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'll be changing the format a bit, but I'd like to see a content review or two from anyone before that. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 19:37, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with TRM regarding the reference placements. Having them placed inside sentences doesn't look very professional. It also makes the article more difficult to read. Volcanoguy 21:38, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
TRMI've done some reference format changes. Unrelated, but I am wondering if this is a source acceptable for a FAC. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 12:32, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi TRM, how are we doing with this one? Gog the Mild (talk) 23:57, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    In all honesty, I still find reading it a challenge, with still awkward positioning of footnotes, but I don't suppose that's a sufficient reason not to support as I know the nominator has gone some way to trying to deal with my concern, for which I am grateful. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 07:56, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sub-discussion about elevation data edit

As the pre-eminent FAC source reviewers, can I ask @Nikkimaria and Ealdgyth: for a second opinion on this source? It's apparently published by Maximo Kausch per here but I am not sure that this is enough to make it a "high-quality source". To wit, the question is about whether this edit can be kept or not, since it's the only source. Copyvio concerns were discussed here Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 19:49, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, @Ealdgyth and Nikkimaria: Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 19:51, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Of the things in that edit, we're talking about the Elevation section? Do we know what sources that site is using for its information? Any details on how posts are fact-checked? Nikkimaria (talk) 00:09, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it's the elevation section. I'll ask MAXIMOKAUSCH about these. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:09, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Jo-Jo Eumerus and Nikkimaria. The elevation sources are cited in each elevation mentioned. Please note these are not written as they are Geo TIFF images (One has to open them using any suitable app, then search the for the highest point). Please note, for example, currently Wikipedia has hundreds of articles citing sources like PeakBagger. Note they use a single DEM to calculate the peak's prominence. I'm using 4 or 5.MAXIMOKAUSCH (talk) 13:51, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think PeakBagger is considered a reliable source. Volcanoguy 05:46, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
While that may be a valid point, it can be nearly impossible to get reliable elevation and topographic prominence from gov't websites. For example, neither of these values are provided by the Canadian Geographical Names Database (to my disappointment). RedWolf (talk) 09:02, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I still think that whether http://www.andes-specialists.com/uturunco-uturuku-6015/ is a reliable source is more important. I think the issue is that prominence and the like are really mountaineering concepts, not something that governments would routinely record. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:33, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi guys, is this resolved? If not pls ping the FAC coords when it is... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:41, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Nikkimaria, Ealdgyth, Volcanoguy, and RedWolf: Just checking that you saw Ian's message above. Unless there is further comment I am inclined to accept this element of the article as it stands. Gog the Mild (talk) 10:38, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Is there a reason not to cite that site's sources directly, rather than via this intermediary? Nikkimaria (talk) 14:16, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Nikkimaria:The only reason I can think of is that I can't verify these sources for the most part. And given that they are primary sources, it wouldn't be clear why they'd be selected for inclusion if they were used directly. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:54, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
There's not much I can say regarding the source in question as I'm also uncertain about it's reliability. True, RedWolf, but reliable sources are a must in FAs per 1c of the featured article criteria. Volcanoguy 16:11, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
As much as I don't want to simply delete MAXIMOKAUSCH's addition, if folks can't vouch on its reliability I'll back it out. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 19:54, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Removed it to here for further discussion. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 18:41, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support and minor comments from chidgk1 edit

Do even Americans think in cubic miles? I find the brackets in the lead a little distracting.

Replaced the mentions. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:54, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

How about rewording "Volcanic activity took place during the Pleistocene age and the last eruption was 250,000 years ago; since then Uturuncu has not erupted but active fumaroles occur in the summit region, between the two summits." to something like "Uturuncu last erupted a quarter of a million years ago at the beginning of the Pleistocene; (but/and) (even) now(adays) fumaroles between the two summits hiss/emit gases and steam."

@Chidgk1:I think that's a little too informal. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:54, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Additional comment)

Additionally, if you liked this comment, or are looking for an article to review I have one at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates#Greenhouse_gas_emissions_by_Turkey Chidgk1 (talk) 12:55, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The former sentence seems better than the latter one in my opinion. In fact, the Pleistocene began 2.5 million years ago, not 250,000 years ago. Volcanoguy 16:03, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Uturuncu/archive1&oldid=1041240848"