Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Coropuna/archive2

< 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 Ealdgyth via FACBot (talk) 25 April 2020 [1].

Coropuna

edit
Nominator(s): Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 20:09, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This article is about the highest volcano in Peru, which currently happens to host the largest ice cap of the tropics even though it is retreating like most ice bodies of the world. The volcano itself began forming during the Miocene or Pliocene but activity continued until recent times; two or three eruptions occurred within the last 10,000 years. Aside from its geological and climatological importance, Coropuna was also a holy site of the Inka, which dedicated two archeological sites to it.

This article was already at FAC two months ago and was withdrawn to work on mainly prose issues. I've taken the liberty to message all the reviewers back then, if that is OK. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 20:09, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments SG
Resolved on FAC talk, change installed in article. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:15, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Iridescent raised this on his talk, so I'm addressing it here. (Although we worked for weeks on this article, I focused on prose in individual sections, and never actually got to read the entire thing through ... I missed this section.)

Coropuna was considered to be the most important God (apu) of the region, the second-most important in the cosmology of the Andes and a holy mountain; it was particularly important for the town of Cotahuasi. ... Today, St Francis of Assisi is sometimes localised at the top of the mountain by pious people and the mountain is used in mortuary rites to this day.

  • Can we know why it was particularly important for Cotahuasi?
  • The two parts of the St Francis of Assisi sentence aren't connected; there are two different thoughts there= two sentences.
  • Today, ... to this day ... redundant ... and take care with MOS:RECENT to specify what exactly is meant.
  • The sentence is awkward; localized? The reader doesn't know what that means. (Iri's question?) So I consulted the source to try to understand what was being said here.

Iri says, "It might be worth finding a Spanish speaker (ping for SandyGeorgia) to ask es-wiki if anyone there has any idea about why the locals believe a medieval Italian is living on their mountain as I can't be the only reader who finds it odd." The source is in English, and culturally, I don't find this at all odd. Different saints are patrons/protectors of different things in the Catholic religion, and I've seen all kinds of customs similar to this throughout my time in Latin America ... but that still doesn't help understand what the sentence is trying to say. The source says:

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 arms. ... Flying Francis appears in centers of Franciscan influence that are located in highly volcanic or seismically active regions. Seismicity and volcanism appear to have been the trigger for the depiction of these eschatological scenes in colonial times, and the initial center of dissemination of the novel iconography was the Cuzco friary. In the Andes, Francis appears more often than not in paintings and sculptures created by native artists, often commissioned by wealthy indigenous nobles for Indian towns. ... Flying Francis and his fellow militant angels also highlight the appropriation of the rhetoric of the oppressor by the oppressed and the subsequent redirection of that rhetoric against the oppressor.

And so on; there is plenty in the source to expand the sentence enough to help the reader understand how this came to be, and the source is in English. Will come back to this when I have time; five of us working made tons of progress on the article,[2] but I never found time to read the whole thing. Someone with better prose than I might figure out how to fix the passage. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:04, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'll reply in this section to keep the thread together even though it probably violates something; my concern with this section is that it seems to raise more questions than it answers. Sure, Catholicism has lots of patron saints who don't necessarily have an obvious connection, but as I understand it the locals don't believe just the St Francis is the patron saint of the mountain, but that St Francis has been resurrected and is currently physically living on the mountain. That is definitely not typical Catholicism; if the sources genuinely don't say how this belief came about then so it goes since we can't speculate in Wikipedia's voice, but every reader who gets to this section is going to be confused by it. (I don't really buy "Flying Francis appears in centers of Franciscan influence that are located in highly volcanic or seismically active regions"; the spiritual heartland of Franciscan belief in Italy has no shortage of active volcanoes but I never heard of a connection between Francis and (e.g.) Vulsini.) ‑ Iridescent 08:29, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
First the cultural part, then the source-->text dilemma.
One key is the sourced phrase, "among today's Peruvian peasantry". I am not surprised at all. Odd local customs tangentially related to religious beliefs are legion in the hispanic culture. Although they often originate among those with less formal education, they often become widespread cultural norms and expectations. To this day, I get very odd looks when I nervously scurry to pick up a purse that a guest in my house has set on the floor, or to ask a child with a seashell in her pocket to leave it outside. Of course I know intellectually that dire consequences are not going to befall my household because someone set their purse on the floor or brought a seashell into my house, but these are nonetheless cultural practices of dubious and odd origins that become the norm. Still does not seem odd to me that peasants have these beliefs, even if they don't exist in other countries and we can't understand how they relate to Catholicism. How does Cuba's brujeria relate to Catholcism? It doesn't; but most practice it. No Venezuelan woman will ever set her purse on the floor or bring a seashell into your home, no matter the level of their education. Does that make sense? No.
So, to the source-->text dilemma, the source a) explains this is a peasant belief, b) says it appears to have been triggered around a local Peruvian (Cuzco) friary during Colonial times as a response to seismicity (that explains the local custom, not found for example in Italy), c) was furthered by wealthy Indigenous nobles through artwork, and d) is related to themes of rhetoric against the oppressor. We have enough to craft one sentence. If it's hard to do, safest is just to directly quote the source. I am not a good wordsmith; you do it, Iridescent :) :) The other issues I listed should also be fixed in that section. Coropuna is not just a volcano; it is a tourist site and a holy site; we have to address this content even if briefly. Also, Iri, re "physically living on the mountain", the source mentions "angels", which aren't such a stretch: I missed the part where you come up with physically resurrected and living there? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:19, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I can't see how to read the pious among today’s Peruvian peasantry believe that Saint Francis has alighted on top of an active volcano in any way other than that he's physically there. (The alternative—that Francis has changed from human to angelic form—really would be heresy at burned-at-the-stake levels, since Francis was human and it's an article of faith that angels are sinless, unchanging and unchanging beings of pure spirit). ‑ Iridescent 15:17, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Continued at Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates/Coropuna/archive2. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:28, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I've split the sentence, but regarding the MOS:CURRENT thing this falls under the "very long time periods" proviso there. As for why it is important for Cotahuasi the source does not specify but it looks like it's because Coropuna is in that area. On the religious aspect ... I wonder if following the source a sentence like "Native people have adapted Spanish beliefs such as Francis of Assisi into their own culture" (needs a better vocabulary) might work as an explainer. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:33, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Best I leave the wordsmithing to others more competent :) On MOS:CURRENT, is the first "today" redundant? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:38, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I've attempted a slight rewrite here to explain, which should probably be checked (it's sourced to the quote that Sandy posted). Just to clarify, the first "today" in the article or in the section? There is only one "today" in the section. I am struggling for a synonym to "localized" that could work. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:40, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
New wording installed after discussion on FAC talk. Looks good! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:15, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support promotion to FA. Have done a few more wording tweaks and some conversions that were a bit off in last week and have read it over twice again. Using the FA Tools from the article talkpage, there are no dead refs and citation bot turned up only one formatting error. From my end I cannot see any reason to not promote this article.--MONGO (talk) 03:41, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Fowler&fowler

edit

Reserving a slot here. I haven't forgotten, just have my plate full right now. I've added this review to my to-do list on my user page. Will get here very soon. I have to earn my 1/3 star.  :) Fowler&fowler«Talk» 03:35, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • "The upper reaches of Coropuna consist of several perennially snowbound conical summits, lending it the name Nevado Coropuna in Spanish."
  • Without any explanation, "Nevado Coropuna" is opaque. It leaves the reader thinking both words are Spanish, whereas we know that it is only the first. Also, "Nevado," according to the Oxford Spanish English citionary is not "snowy," but "snow-capped," i.e. capped, crowned, or overlain with snow.
  • Do you think it would be more accurate to say, even in the lead, "The upper reaches of Coropuna consist of several perennially snowbound conical summits, lending themselves to the name Nevado Coropuna for the mountain in Spanish ('nevado,' literally, 'snow-capped.')"? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 02:08, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • On second thoughts, though, the sentence in the lead is fine. We don't want to complicate things too much too early. But you might consider a change in the etymology section if this meaning is indeed accurate. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:50, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by DoctorSpeed

edit
  • Support promotion to FA. Looks wonderful and well-researched! DoctorSpeed ✉️ ✨
  • Query from WereSpielChequers
Nice read, hope you are OK with the tweaks I made.
"The glaciers lose mass through both sublimation and melting. This meltwater rarely forms streams, though some do exist" (my emphasis) to my mind jibes with statements such as "The retreat of the Coropuna glaciers threatens the water supply of tens of thousands of people relying upon its watershed".

ϢereSpielChequers 08:22, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Um, WereSpielChequers I am not sure if I understand the problem... The tweaks are fine by the way. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:24, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If the meltwater rarely even forms streams, how does it contribute to the water supply of tens of thousands of people? is it soaking away and topping up the groundwater that these people rely on? Or is something else going on? ϢereSpielChequers 10:03, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@WereSpielChequers:The sources do not discuss these aspects in depth, but I'd imagine that some meltwater flows underground (as groundwater) from Coropuna's icecap to the rivers. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:09, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport by CPA-5

edit
  • Is there a template for it? If not maybe link it?
  • I always recommend to link it in the body too but that's fine.
  • True but I see some other small numbers who are the written with their symbols; maybe standardise?
  • During the dry season, most of these Link dry season.
    Linked. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 11:00, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • and about 3.5 kilometres (2.2 mi) on the southern side --> "and about 3.5 km (2.2 mi) on the southern side"
  • of 6,425 metres (21,079 ft) for the El Toro summit --> "of 6,425 m (21,079 ft) for the El Toro summit"
  • Coropuna Casulla at 6,377 metres (20,922 ft) --> "Coropuna Casulla at 6,377 m (20,922 ft)"
    I recall a discussion on the talk page where it was recommended that the units be spelled out, so I am not sure about this change. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 11:00, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Per MOS:UNITNAMES short units should be written a few times in the article. In my opinion an article with short units like "metres" should be max 3 times written in it. But I'm not sure if this applies in both the body and lead or they should have maximum 3 "metres" each (6 in total). Anyway the metres here are totally not a few. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 12:41, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Total shrinkage has been estimated to amount to 26 percent between 1962 and 2000, and by 18 percent between 1955 and 2007 American per cent here.

Going through Glacial history and the rest later on. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 09:41, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • with its surface exceeding 500 square kilometres (190 sq mi) --> "with its surface exceeding 500 km2 (190 sq mi)" Per MOS:UNITNAMES.
    Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 19:04, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • dated tephra layers such as those from the 1600 Huaynaputina eruptions --> "dated tephra layers such as those from the 1,600 Huaynaputina eruptions"
    Pretty sure that proper dates are not comma separated. I've singularized this, though, it was probably a typo. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 19:04, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • as 100 m (330 ft) high, 8 km (5.0 mi) long Round the nought here.
    Um, clarify the request, please? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 19:04, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are large cirques around Cerro Cuncaicha.[81][37] Re-order the refs here.
    Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 19:04, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • and old dates of 47,000–31,000 and 61,000–37,000 years Small numbers first than the larger one.
  • the last glacial maximum 20,000–18,000 years ago Same as above.
  • to either 13,400–10,000 or 13,900–11,900 years ago Same as above.
  • lasted until 10,000–9,000 years ago Same as above.
  • place about 13,000–9,000 years ago Same as above.
    Not sure that this is correct for date ranges, especially when the paragraph is written in a descending order. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 19:04, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • It looks different you see; a date range like this which goes before AD then sure it shouldn't. But I don't believe a date range with "years ago" behind it, is not really a date range anymore. It now looks like a range of years of how long ago; if it'd says for instead "place about 11,000–7,000 BC" instead of "place about 13,000–9,000 years ago". Except if there is a policy or a lot of sources who disagree with me or am not aware of then I'm fine with this.
  • The closest policies I could find about this tiny issue are MOS:ENTO and MOS:DATERANGE. MOS:ENTO says "For ranges between numbers, dates, or times, use an en dash" so I assume years is part of times; it also doesn't say we should use ranges from small to big numbers even though all of the examples are written from small to big numbers. Unless there is a separate guideline which wouldn't surprise me. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 18:32, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • @CPA-5:I don't have anymore information or knowledge apart from what I said before, and if ambiguity is the issue I don't see how changing the order would resolve it. So I stand by my previous assessment that consistency with the paragraph structure favours the descending order. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:18, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • How about this sentence "at a rate of 0.409 square kilometres per year (0.158 sq mi/a)"? Also we should avoid this number in this sentence "amounting to zero point five km2/a (0.19 sq mi/a)".
  • No worries.
  • Whoops probably was confused which dash it was.
  • Not "present-day" here.

Okay that's anything from me. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 17:31, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@CPA-5: Got these, but I don't agree that dates should always be in smaller-->bigger order. Also closed a tag there. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 19:04, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Jo-Jo Eumerus: Ditto. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 09:52, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@CPA-5: Replied. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:25, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Could you also remove the awkward numbers like these "and about three point five km (2.2 mi)", "it was eight point five km (5.3 mi) wide" and "decreased by four point five–five point five °C (8.1–9.9 °F)". Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 18:32, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Source review by Factotem - Support

edit

Technical checks

  • Sources showing CS1 Maint msgs. The |ref=harv parameter is not necessary and can be removed to eliminate the msgs
    Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 12:55, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Any reason why some source details are provided as part of inline ref (e.g. #9 Besom, #41 Yates et al) and not listed in the Sources section? This seems to be common with sources with ISBN refs.
    That's because I use Harv references when more than one page is being employed and ref tags when I am employing only one page. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 12:55, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Then I'm sorry to do this on a technicality, but per WP:CITESTYLE, we're supposed to be consistent with how we cite. The article mixes <ref>...</ref> with {sfn}, which is a no-no as I understand it. Factotem (talk) 13:09, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I think you may be misreading or misunderstanding CITESTYLE. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:40, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Quite possibly so, and I would be delighted for any good reason to set aside such a nitpicky technicality, but that guideline does state "...citations within any given article should follow a consistent style." How do I ignore that in evaluating whether the sourcing in this otherwise, as best I can tell, impeccable article is representative of WP's finest work? Factotem (talk) 15:20, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The idea is that citations should render consistently; the device or template used to accomplish that isn't the issue. THis whole problem came about back in the day when many people still used parenthetical citations, and others began switching them to ref tags-- that was the main conflict. If the citations in the article have a consistent style as rendered to the reader, we're good here :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:07, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That's not really what the guideline says, though. I've queried it on the guideline TP, but as far as this FAC is concerned, the really important stuff is squared away and ship shape, so all good here. Factotem (talk) 17:10, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Inconsistent with publisher locations. You seem to have opted not to provide these, which is fine, but Heine's work appears to give the locations as part of the publisher name, whilst Hermann's work specificaly provides the location info.
    Removed the location. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 12:55, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is the publisher Springer Spektrum (Heine) or just Springer (Hermann), or are these really two different publishers?
    It seems like they might be two different publishers that are part of the same conglomerate. Ealdgyth, do you know perhaps what the relationship between the two is? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 12:55, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mismatch in editions of Wilson's The Andes referenced in the References section. The archive.org link relates to a 266-page edition with ISBN 9780195386356, but the ISBN you provide, 9780199731077, relates to a 285-page edition
    Changed the ISBN. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 12:55, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Curious as to why so many different identifiers are sometimes provided. For example, Cubukcu et al's work is listed with Bibcode, doi and ISSN. It's not an issue and no action is required here, but, A. surely one ID will suffice, and, B. having multiple ID's surely introduces scope for error?
    That's ultimately because formatting references is the most excruciatingly painful aspect of Wikipedia editing, so I don't make much effort at standardizing. The Bibcodes are added by a bot. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 12:55, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Following on from above, I did check a few at random and found no issues, although, to nitpick, the only date I could find for Forget's work is 2008, with nowhere stating 1 July as provided in the Sources listing.
    Sometimes I wonder whether these day-month bits that the citation formatting tools such as RefToolbar sometimes show are pulled out of thin air. Removed and fixed another issue in that reference. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 12:55, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Equally nitpicky (sorry), Racoviteanu et al's work appears to be from issues 1–4, not 1
    Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 12:55, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • What's going on with Úbeda? This appears to be one person, but is variously listed in the Sources section as "Palenque, Jose Úbeda", "Úbeda, Jose" and "Úbeda Palenque, José". There are also two other works detailed in the References section, one co-authored by "Úbeda, Jose" (ref #97), the other co-authored by "Úbeda, J" (ref #122), the latter appearing to be an English language version of the 2012 work co-authored with Palacios and Vázquez-Selém that is listed under its Spanish title in the Sources section.
    I am fairly albeit not 100% sure these are the same person, but see above re: "excruciatingly painful". Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 12:55, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Two works listed with Kuentz as the lead co-author are both dated 2011. You cite one as "Kuentz, Ledru & Thouret 2011" (e.g. ref #69) and the other as "Kuentz et al. 2011" (e.g. ref #196). My concern here is that "Kuentz et al. 2011" could be confused as referring to the other, "Kuentz, Ledru & Thouret" work. Maybe better if you change "Kuentz et al." to "Kuentz, Forget, Ledru & Thouret" and change the order in which you list those authors in the Sources listing?
  • Similar problem: there are two works listed in the sources published in 2011 where Bromley is listed as the first co-author, but in the References section the only possibly relevant cite is to "Bromley et al. 2011". This means that either only one of those two sources is being used or that the two different sources have been mistakenly conflated as one in the referencing
    Mended both by applying "2011b" for the year. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 12:55, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Unsourced info

  • Main body of the article is extensively and admirably sourced, with no unsourced statements
  • It states in the infobox Early Pliocene, but I'm not sure there's any support for the "early" in the main body of the article
    5 million years ago is early Pliocene, as the Pliocene goes 5.333 million to 2.58 million years ago. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 12:55, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Whilst checking where in the main article there is support for the last eruption information provided in the infobox, I found that the relevant section begins "No eruptions of Coropuna during historical[165] or modern times are known..." but then goes on to state that the 1,100 or 700-year-old lava flow was "...probably formed during a single eruption..." I'm pretty sure that even 1,100 qualifies as a historical time. Just a bit confusing.
    I believe that 165# is treating "historical" as "post-Spanish conquest" which was one-two centuries later. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 12:55, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The source for the image captioned "The larger tectonic plates in South America" in the Geology section does not include the arrows. What is the source for them?
    I dunno and have commented out the file in the meantime. Perhaps Beyond My Ken knows. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 12:55, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Quality, reliablity and comprehensiveness of sources

  • This subject is way out of my comfort zone and I cannot make any informed comment on the quality, reliability or comprehensiveness of the sources used. All I can say is that the sheer quantity of different sources cited and the fact that the vast majority are journal articles suggests to me that the article is not deficient in these respects.

That's all from me. Factotem (talk) 11:30, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Factotem: Replied and resolved as appropriate. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 12:55, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
All good. Supporting on sourcing Factotem (talk) 17:08, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Iridescent

edit

Apologies for the delay, I've commented on so many different versions of this article that I thought I'd already commented on this FAC but apparently not. Support per my comments at the previous FAC; as per my comment there I don't have an issue with parts of this not meeting "its prose is engaging" given that so much of it is technical detail which needs to be provided but which is impossible to make exciting. ‑ Iridescent 08:26, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Coord notes

edit
  • Noting FTR that Nikkimaria checked image licensing at the previous FAC and I can see that none have been added since.
  • CPA-5, if you're able to return and check on changes in response to your comments that'd be great.

Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:52, 20 April 2020 (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/Coropuna/archive2&oldid=953157764"