Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Guallatiri/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 FrB.TG via FACBot (talk) 17 January 2024 [1].

Guallatiri

edit
Nominator(s): Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:54, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a volcano in northern Chile, one of the more active volcanoes in this remote region. It is covered by a shrinking ice cap and it has conspicuous fumaroles that can be seen from around the mountain. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:54, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Image review—pass

(t · c) buidhe 17:05, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

HF - support

edit
I intend to review this over the coming days; please ping me if I haven't gotten to this by Monday. Hog Farm Talk 17:46, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think that is it for the first read-through. Hog Farm Talk 03:42, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@FAC coordinators: this has been stalled for a few weeks. Is it OK to ping the participants in my last FAC (Mike Christie, Volcanoguy, Esculenta, Hawkeye7, Gog the Mild and Mujinga) to see if they have input? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:10, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That would be fair -- the FAC list isn't long ATM and I think we can afford this one more time. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:17, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
So done, then. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:19, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - pass

edit
  • Can we sort the references into alphabetical order? Anales, Reyes-Hardy and Reyes are out of order.
  • Why is DAVID in capitals?
  • Titles for Inostroza and Muñoz are in capitals - lowercase
  • Date formats are inconsistent:
    • Alvaro et al, Jorquera, Reyes, and Rodriguez et al use mdy - should be dmy - and why is SERNAGEOMIN in capitals?
    • Bouysse-Cassagne, Glaciología, Gliß et al, Stern et al use ISO - should be dmy
  • ISBN formats are inconsistent:
    • Bouysse-Cassagne - isbn should be 978-2-37154-004-0
  • Access dates required for Cáceres, Chacón Cruz, Charrier, David, Espinosa, Francis, GVP,
  • Link for Jaksic is broken
  • Unlink Concepción, Melipeuco, Naples
  • location for Bouysse-Cassagne, David, Villalba et al, Wörner?
  • DOI for Romero is invalid or incorrect
  • Incomplete journal references:
    • Bion should be volume 15, issue 1, pp. 183-184 issn 0065-6925
    • Echevarría (1963) should be volume 13, issue 2, pp. 425-452 issn 0065-6925
    • Estudios públicos ISSN is 0718-3089
    • Hydrological Sciences Journal ISSN is 0262-6667

Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:02, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

SERNAGEOMIN is an acronym, hence the caps. Cáceres doesn't have an URL at the moment so it can't get an accessdate. I don't see a location for Bouysse-Cassagne and I don't think that it, Wörner or Villalba need one. I sent a report for that DOI, and just sent another one. Done otherwise. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:42, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
SERNAGEOMIN is defined in the lead but not the body. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:17, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Explained. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:15, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Spot checks:
    • 54a, 69, 77, 84a - okay

Sources are of good quality.

Pass Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:17, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Mike Christie

edit
  • "Other names are Punata which is also Aymara, Huallatiri and Huallatire." Suggest "Other names are Punata, which is also an Aymara word, Huallatiri, and Huallatire." If you don't want the Oxford comma in this case, then perhaps "Other names are Punata (which is also an Aymara word), Huallatiri and Huallatire."
    Went for the parenthetical. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 14:47, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Other towns include": suggest "Other nearby towns include".
    Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 14:47, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why is Arica worth mentioning?
    Because it's the first large city - even Putre is more a village. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 14:47, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Economic activity in the area includes the Tambo Quemado border crossing, agriculture, animal husbandry as well as tourism and mountaineering": I think this needs "agriculture and animal husbandry" (or with an Oxford comma if you prefer); "as well as" following a list grammatically implies the list could stand alone, meaning that the last two items need the "and" between them.
    Rewrote this a bit. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 14:47, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    That wasn't quite what I meant so I tweaked it again. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 20:38, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Your version works even better. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:15, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note [c]'s mention of other reported heights seems significant enough for more of it to be in the main text. Perhaps something like "Guallatiri height has been variously reported." and then give any reasons for trusting the two you put in the main text, and mention that higher and lower figures exist. Optionally I think you could also move the rest of [c], about topographical prominence, to the main text. Or if you do reduce [c] to a note about topographical prominence as I'm suggesting, you could move it to after "Guallatiri rises about 1.7 kilometres (1.1 mi) above the surrounding terrain".
    Moved the note down and left the heights thing behind. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 14:47, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Ice area has been retreating": can we get an indication of the time period this is referring to? E.g. was this a 2017 paper reviewing the previous 20 years, or an assessment of the 20th century retreat?
    Added a parenthetical to explain why. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 14:47, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "This is a consequence of the climate in the region, where glacier extent was more sensitive to increased moisture supply than to decreasing temperatures": I would think both increased moisture and decreasing temperature would tend to increase glacier extent, so this seems an odd thing to say -- the relative sensitivity to these two factors doesn't explain why the climate in the region led to a different time of maximum glacial extent.
    In practical terms, glaciers respond more to temperature than to precipitation except in very dry regions. Guallatiri and other Central Andean volcanoes are simply an exception to the rule. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 14:47, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    OK, but I don't follow the logical connection between that sentence and the previous one. Why does this fact mean peak glaciation was at a different time? Is there a missing connective statement, perhaps about the climate during those times? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 20:38, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    It's one of these cases where the explanation isn't contained in the source. I've moved part of the sentence to a footnote. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:15, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I think if we can't explain the connection the simplest thing to do would be to remove the second sentence of the footnote. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:49, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I've added an explanation. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 19:04, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    That works. I was surprised to see a word like "presumably" in Wikipedia's voice, but I looked at the cited abstract and I think that works. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:12, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Some glaciers were still present during the Holocene, as the Domo Tinto lava dome bears traces of glacial erosion and is partially covered by moraines." "As" should mean that the information after it implies the information before it, but I don't see a causal connection here -- the traces of erosion could predate the Holocene. If the point is that the Domo Tinto dome is of Holocene age, I think that needs to be mentioned here.
    Mentioned that DT is of Holocene age. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 14:47, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Moraines have been emplaced on volcanic units." This is in the last paragraph of the "Ice" subsection; I think it's here because you're summarizing, but it's rather repetitive since you've already mentioned that there are moraines.
    Rewrote this a bit. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 14:47, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "It contains about 58 volcanoes which are potentially active or active": I misparsed this on first reading as having "potentially" apply to both "active" and "active". Suggest "It contains about 58 volcanoes which are active or potentially active".
    Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 14:47, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I can sort of guess what "overprinted" must mean, but it feels like a term of art. Can it be linked? Or failing that is there a lay term that is sufficiently precise to use instead?
    Used a layman formulation. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 14:47, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The volcano may be an important cause of arsenic pollution in the region." Suggest linking "arsenic pollution" to Arsenic#Environmental issues.
    Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 14:47, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Done through the flora and fauna section; more to come, possibly later today. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:22, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

More:

  • "The older Humurata and Acotango volcanoes are heavily eroded, Capurata is better preserved." This is a run-on sentence. A semi-colon would fix it, but I also think some context needs to be given -- these other volcanoes have not been mentioned before. Presumably they're in the same region? We're comparing them because of their proximity? And similarly for the mention of Parinacota and Lascar. At least Parinacota is linked so a reader could figure out it's nearby.
    Humurata is actually mentioned before, as Umurata. I've matched the spelling and mentioned Capurata before too. Lascar's being compared b/c as mentioned a few sections above it's the most active CVZ volcano. I put a semicolon but perhaps another rewrite is needed? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:15, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Later research subdivided the growth of the volcano into seven separate stages": if we're going to contrast early and late research we should mention that the early conclusions are based on early research at the start of the paragraph. If it's not a contrast, just a statement that the two broad phases given at the start of the paragraph can be further divided, then I don't think we need to say "later research".
    Rewrote this a bit. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:15, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd suggest "Another suggested subdivision" or "Another proposed subdivision", but this might change depending on how the next point is resolved. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:49, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "seven separate stages,[69] of which 1–4 crop out mainly at the periphery of the volcano and 5–6 in its central sector". So where's stage 7?
    You know, that's a good question. The source says "seven" several times but I see only six stages. Unless Tinto is supposed to be a stage by itself, between 5 and 6, but the numbers don't make sense then. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:15, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I hate using sources that are internally inconsistent. Could we elide mentions of stage numbers in order to avoid the problem? Something like "Another proposal subdivides these two stages further." We might not need more detail than that since the "early = peripheral, late = central" point is already given in the first division. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:49, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I've opted to put an explanatory footnote, á la Copiapó (volcano) and footnote 1 in Biddenden Maids. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 19:04, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Some lava flows are well preserved, others have been glaciated." Run-on sentence.
    Does a "while" resolve the problem, I've put one in. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:15, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Evidence indicates that large eruptions similar to the 1993 eruption of Lascar may have occurred at Guallatiri." I think this could be cut to just "Large eruptions similar to the 1993 eruption of Lascar may have occurred at Guallatiri"; the "may" and the citations imply that there's evidence.
    Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:15, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Pyroclastic flow deposits extend to 10 kilometres (6.2 mi) distance from Guallatiri." Suggest "Pyroclastic flow deposits extend 10 kilometres (6.2 mi) from Guallatiri."
    Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:15, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Guallatiri is, after Lascar, the second-most active volcano in northern Chile": I added parenthetical commas to this but I think it's still not quite right. The construction with "after" should exclude the exception from the comparison -- that is, Lascar is excluded, so we should get a statement about Guallatiri that is true without referring to Lascar. More natural would be "Guallatiri is, after Lascar, the most active volcano in northern Chile" or "Guallatiri is the second-most active volcano after Lascar in northern Chile". To keep "second-most active" it would have to be something like "Guallatiri is the second-most active volcano in northern Chile" with a footnote or parenthesis naming Lascar.
    Recast this one. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:15, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, this is my mistake. You used the second form of words I suggested but I didn't edit it correctly. What I should have said is that I think it should be "most active", not "second-most active". Saying "after Lascar" already implies "second-most", so using both implies third-most. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:49, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I didn't read such an implication at all. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 19:04, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    On rereading I think putting "after Lascar" in parentheses, as you've done, resolves this for me. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:20, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "They believed that the waters of ...": we don't have a referent for "they". Should it be "The Chipayan people"?
    Yes, added a variant. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:15, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

-- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:23, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:20, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Gog the Mild

edit

Recusing to review.

  • Would it be possible to add the height to the lead. Ideally in the first sentence."
    Not keen on doing this for mountains with unclear height. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 19:06, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I see two values for the height (6,060 m and 6,071 m). Surely the lead could say something like "approximately" or "variously reported as"? And since I'm here, I'm confused about Lower values appear in recent publications, as well which is sourced to the CONAF web site (https://www.conaf.cl/parques/reserva-nacional-las-vicunas/) but I don't see anything on that page which even mentions Guallatiri. Would it also be possible to talk about why there's uncertainty about the height? Is it because it's hard to measure, or because it keeps changing as the volcano does its thing? RoySmith (talk) 03:42, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    That's because CONAF uses the alternative spelling "Guallatire". Telling the height of a topographic feature isn't easy and this mountain isn't well-known or well-studied. You can see another example at Ojos del Salado. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:44, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    OK, so I found (in English translation) "Guallatire (6063 meters above sea level)". I don't understand how that jives with "Lower values appear in recent publications" since that's higher than the 6,060 you give as the first figure. In any case, with the three recently reported values of 6,060, 6,063, and 6,071 it seems like you could certainly give an approximate value in the lead. You should also mention "Guallatire" as being the Spanish spelling, or alternate name, or whatever. RoySmith (talk) 18:20, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Done and done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:21, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "on the Pacific Ocean". Perhaps 'on the Pacific coast'.
    Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 19:06, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Guallatiri rises about 1.7 kilometres (1.1 mi) above". It would be usual to give this in m and ft, not km and mi.
    For such relative height estimates I tend to rely on km. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 19:06, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "covers a surface of about 85 kilometres (53 mi)". What does this mean? (That it 'covers an area of about 85 kilometres2'?)
    Typo, resolved. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 19:06, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "It contains about 58 volcanoes which are active or potentially active, 33 of which are located within Chile." Is it possible to avoid "which" twice in the sentence?
    Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:21, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "There is evidence that the terrain was tectonically active during the Quaternary." As the Quaternary runs to the present day, this is not providing any new information.
    Volcanic processes are not a form of tectonic processes, from what I know. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:21, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oops! I need to pay more attention.
  • "The occurrence of obsidian has been reported." Your phrasing makes it sound as if this were contentious. Is it? If not, perhaps 'Obsidian is also present'?
    It's the formulation I use when discussing a finding that isn't contested, but hasn't drawn the attention one would expect.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:21, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It is a formulation which when used in Wikipedia's voice is commonly taken to mean Wikipedia is distancing itself somewhat from the claim and so shouldn't be used in other circumstances. If it is important to note that "a finding that isn't contested, but hasn't drawn the attention one would expect" then say so in as many words.
I think such an explanation leans itself too much into OR territory, sorry. It's a single lava bomb, so I've rewritten in that sense, but it might be worth deleting. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:16, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nice.
Yes, I am happy with that. But "another" grammatically requires a previously mentioned 'other'.
That's the Guallatiri I and II one, which seems to be more common. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:16, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In which case, fair enough. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:49, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

More to follow. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:44, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That's it for now. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:27, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Assuming my recent minor copy edits are agreeable - if not, let's discuss them here - I am happy to support. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:58, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Harrias – support

edit

Overall a very interesting article. Harrias (he/him) • talk 14:24, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nice work, happy to give this my support. Harrias (he/him) • talk 09:58, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support from RoySmith

edit

I already crashed Gog's party with some drive-by comments, so might as well do a full review...

General notes
edit
  • You spell out "metres", "kilometres", etc, but abbreviate "ft" and "mi". Likewise for "square/cubic" vs "sq/cu". I know this is the default that {{convert}} produces, but it seems odd. Could {{convert}} be coaxed into producing the short form for both sets of units?
    Looks like this is the abbr=off parameter. Applied it to first mentions and abbr=on to next mentions. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:54, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Why have a different setting for the first mention? MOS:UNIT doesn't say to do this, at least not that I've found. RoySmith (talk) 23:27, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I was working off Units unfamiliar to general readers should be presented as a name–symbol pair on first use, linking the unit name. I've changed a bit around but I notice that there is no linkable unit for several of them. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:16, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I would hope that even the most freedom-unit-loving American would not consider the meter (or the metre) to be "unfamiliar", but I guess anything is possible. RoySmith (talk) 15:37, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Lead
edit
Name and ascents
edit
Geography and geomorphology
edit
The volcano
edit
  • "Guallatiri is 6,060 metres (19,880 ft)[23][24][10] or 6,071 metres (19,918 ft) high" -> "... has been variously reported as ..."
  • "It is a composite volcano[5] or stratovolcano" are those synonyms, or have some authors called it one and other authors called it the other, in which case you want some variation on "has been described as either a ..." The same comment applies to "lava dome, lava complex[1] or volcanic plug[26]".
    Mmm, not sure that these changes aren't making them too long. It's not an opinion, but rather disagreement about facts. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:54, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "make up the edifice.", I think of "edifice" in the sense of Building (and indeed, Edifice redirects there). I gather this has a different meaning in the context of volcanos. Could "edifice" be linked to someplace that describes that sense of the word, or a short description be added here?
    Yes, in the context of volcanoes it means the entire pile of volcanic rocks but also things like calderas etc. Here I've changed it to mountain and structure, respectively. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:54, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "emanate in all directions,[32] but are primarily", I don't think you need the comma
    Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:54, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "These domes form a northwest–southeast line and are 1.5 kilometres (0.93 mi) apart." work this into the next sentence, something like "while Domo Sur" -> "; Domo Sur, 1.5 km to the southwest, is 120 metres..."
    Isn't it better to first describe the dome complex, then its components? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:54, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I just think that "These domes form a northwest–southeast line" is an overly complicated way to say "one is southeast of the other". Any two points for a line. Or are you saying that there's three points (these two, and the main peak) that are all on a line? RoySmith (talk) 23:51, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah, got it now. Changed. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:16, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ice
edit
  • "a small ice cap" Does the source characterize it as "small"?
    Actually not; I've removed it. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:54, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Heat emitted by fumaroles may have contributed to the enhanced melting of the ice" It's difficult to imagine a scenario where the application of heat to melting ice hasn't contributed in some way to the melting, to the extent that the reader is left wondering if such an obvious statement doesn't have some deeper meaning. It seems like some kind of attributive statement ("Rivera has theorized that ...") would be in order here.
    Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:54, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "still present during the Holocene, as the": perhaps "as evidenced by" instead of "as the"
    Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:54, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(I'll take a break here and come back another day, but let me jump forward to the item that actually prodded me into doing this review. The "Geological map of Guallatiri" image under "Eruptive history" has a legend that is almost impossible to read because it's so small. Fortunately, https://www.scielo.cl/pdf/andgeol/v41n3/art04.pdf contains a PDF version of this image which could (i.e. should) be extracted to use in place of the low-res jpg that's there now.)

Did that too. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:54, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Geology
edit
Flora, fauna and climate
edit
Eruptive history
edit

(I'll finish this up later)

Hazards and monitoring
edit
Mythology and religious importance
edit

That's all I've got. RoySmith (talk) 03:53, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've gone through your last set of updates. I've still got a few questions, which I've scattered about in-line. I guess see the edit history. RoySmith (talk) 00:00, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And replied. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:16, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

OK, this looks good, thanks for writing this; I now know more about volcanoes than I did before, and this makes a nice addition to the encyclopedia. Marking this for support. RoySmith (talk) 15:39, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

SC

edit

Marker for now: I'll be along shortly. - SchroCat (talk) 10:01, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Name and ascents
Geography
The volcano
Ice
  • "According to Rivera et al. 2005, heat emitted": do we need the publishing year here? If so, it would be better written into a sentence (as you do with "Jorquera et al. in 2019" and "In 2021, Sepúlveda et al."), rather than just left like this
    Yes, there are a number of Riveras and their publications. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 18:55, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Wouldn't "According to Rivera et al's 2005 study, heat emitted..." work? As WP isn't a scientific paper, I think avoiding academic shorthand is better for the general reader. Your call and I don't push it, but it's a stumbling read as it stands. - SchroCat (talk) 10:40, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Nah, I think spelling out it's about a study is reasonable so I've done it. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 11:05, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "evidenced by Holocene-age Domo Tinto lava dome bears traces of glacial erosion": I think the grammar has gone slightly awry here
    Added something. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 18:55, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Done to the start of Eruptive history. Reading well so far. – SchroCat (talk) 11:22, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Historical and seismic activity
Mythology
  • "Guallatiri was considered to be an apu or mallku, a protective mountain spirit." I think I would feel more comfortable is this was somehow linked to whoever considered it. Local tribes from the 13thC? Missionaries from the 19th? Geologists of the 20th? Connecting the myth with the believer is always important, I think.
    The sources attribute it to the "territory", i.e the inhabitants. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 18:55, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Can we add that (and any idea of when it was believed? Was it an ancient belief, or is it still thought so today?) - SchroCat (talk) 10:40, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Unfortunately, mythology of any particular volcano is rarely documented to a significant degree. From the present tense one would infer the beliefs are still held today, and as generic as the source is I wouldn't attribute it (too much of SYNTH potential), but that's it. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 11:05, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That's fine: you've got the sources and the knowledge, so if it's not possible, that's OK. - SchroCat (talk) 11:09, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's my lot. Interesting article, with only a few very minor quibbles. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 16:31, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@FAC coordinators: Is there anything needed yet, like spotchecks or prose review or something else? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 12:53, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Looks pretty good from a quick scan. I’ll have a better look tomorrow unless one of my fellow coords beats me to it. FrB.TG (talk) 13:15, 16 January 2024 (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/Guallatiri/archive1&oldid=1251717488"