Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Incapillo/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) 22 October 2023 [1].

Incapillo

edit
Nominator(s): Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:46, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a volcanic caldera in the central Andes. It is not particularly remarkable or well-known, but it has been described as one of the highest of its kind - and so are the mountains that surround it. It was active during the past 520,000 years and there might be residual heat available. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:46, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

MyCatIsAChonk

edit

Geographical features like this are always stunning to me, especially good photos; the photo here makes it look almost miniature, if not for the hill on the left. Excited to review!

Jo-Jo Eumerus, I got nothing else, most of my comments are due to my lack of knowledge on geology; but, always good to have a clueless person to give feedback ;) excellent work! MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 01:15, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Point 3: I believe it means 0.49-0.55 million years ago and 0.47-0.55 million years ago -- in layman English terms, "0.52 million years ago, give or take 0.03 million years." Would that be easier to understand? 267 06:07, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, now I understand- thanks for clarifying! I think your rephrasing would be more understandable to a general audience, but JoJo can use whatever is the wiki standard. MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 12:28, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I worry that this format will be mistaken for a date range/length when it's a point in time. JoJo Eumerus mobile (main talk) 16:55, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Makes sense then- all done, happy to support! Also, if you get any time, would appreciate any comments at this FAC- thank you! MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 22:59, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

GWL

edit

Hey! Great to be reviewing another of your FACs, I remember doing one ages ago but can't seem to know which one. Anyways, take a look at the invisible comments for my cmts divided by sec. Alot of my comments are just minor stuff, so it should be a quick one. GeraldWL 06:41, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Jo-Jo Eumerus, that should be it! The links problem is admittedly a tiny one and shouldn't really affect my view on this FAC. Overall it's good stuff, so am happy to support! Also if you'd like, I'm looking for people to comment on my PR. GeraldWL 10:31, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from GeraldWL 10:31, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
* The WP article of La Rioja capitalizes "Province"-- though I think decapitalized version is also okay, I guess I'm just confused at the difference

Comments by Thebiguglyalien

edit

Another reviewer who has only limited knowledge of geology.

General notes:

  • Overall, my biggest concern is that there's a lot of technical language in this article. Effort should be made to WP:Make technical articles understandable. I suggest doing a full pass over the article to change technical wording to non-technical wording as much as you can. And when that's not possible, then try to insert simple explanations so the layman can follow along.
  • Decimals should be written in numeral form.

Lead:

Geography and structure:

  • "The surrounding mountain peaks were visited by pre-Hispanic people, and the crater is marketed as an area of touristic interest, with visits possible between December and April" – Are these two ideas related in any way?
    No, other than they are of the same topic. I've split it. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:06, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • This second paragraph of this section seems to be about the CVZ in a way that isn't relevant to Incapillo specifically. Wouldn't this paragraph be better suited at Andean Volcanic Belt#Central Volcanic Zone? Maybe it can be condensed down to one or two sentences of the most important details for the Incapillo article.
    Eh, I think putting the article topic in context (as required by Wikipedia:Featured article criteria) is better served by the current text. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:06, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and consisting of erosional material" – The domes or the basal apron?
    Clarified. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:06, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Some domes have water-filled craters with widths of 20 metres" – Are they all exactly 20 metres, or should an "approximately" or an "about" be thrown in there?
    Apparently exactly so Field observation and ASTER imagery reveal numerous water-filled pit craters 20 m in diameter on the summits of the largest of the western domes Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:06, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "show signs of alteration" – This links to "hydrothermal alteration". Is there any reason why it's piped to remove "hydrothermal"?
    Depiped. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:06, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The total volume of the domes is about 16 cubic kilometres" – Each, or combined?
    Clarified. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:06, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The lake may be either 350-metre (1,150 ft) or 13-metre (43 ft) deep" – This is a massive range. Is this because it changes throughout the year or because it's different a depth in different parts? Or did they just measure it by eyeballing it?
  • "it might lie at" – The word "might" introduces a little too much uncertainty.
    Both of the comments above because it's two sources that don't agree and no obvious way to explain it. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:06, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    A little more research into the depth might be appropriate. It's currently too wide of a range to be of any value. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 19:29, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Done but it didn't yield anything. At best, we could exclude the 350m value as it's implausible and older but we are dancing on the line of WP:OR if we do this. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:14, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "its surface area declined between 1986 and 2017" – Then when are those previous measurements from?
    Apparently they aren't dated, making this difficult to interpret. The source for the decrease claim gives an average area...for 1986 and 2017. Go figure...Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:06, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Geology:

Climate, hydrology and vegetation:

  • This seems a little short to have its own section. Is there more than can be said about these aspects? If not, could this be organized in a way that the information is part of a larger section?
    Yeah, I prefer not to merge as there isn't a good section to add it to. The only information we have is very general and does not pertain specifically to Incapillo, only to this region. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:06, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "with an upper altitude limit of 4,300–5,000 metres" – Does this mean that this is the highest that any vegetation can appear? It's unclear.
    Clarified. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:06, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Geologic history:

  • This section feels like it's throwing numbers and statistics at me. Not sure how avoidable this is, but it does affect readability. It's possible that a lot of the measurements here could be put in a table, although that would depend on what the measurements are and whether they're comparable.
    Yeah, it's not avoidable, really - when discussing history there will be a lot of dates. I don't think this kind of information is well-suited for a table, it's too much prose. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:06, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    If there's some way to even break up the text a little bit so the numbers are less frequent or more spaced out, that would go a long way to improving readability. Some things here look like they would work well for a table, like "Volume of ignimbrite / 20.4 km3". But again, I'm not necessarily saying that it's the only solution. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 19:29, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I am not convinced that several small tables are better for readability. Here we might just have to take the text as it is. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:14, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "or less likely by changes in the tectonic context" – Is this an alternative theory that contradicts the previous one? If so, it should probably be introduced in its own sentence specifying that it's another explanation.
    Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:06, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ping me once everything has been addressed or if you have any other thoughts regarding these comments. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 19:11, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've handled comments, except as noted. Re: technical language, I'm afraid that as a connoisseur of the technical terms I can't spot the problematic ones myself; I'll footnote some of them to this source. Also, at the risk of sounding stupid but I don't get what the decimal comment is proposing. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:06, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've looked things over and replied to a few points above. If I haven't replied to it, assume it's good to go. For the decimals I just mean write "3.1" instead of "three point one"; it's not an integer, so it doesn't need to be spelled out. Once the rest of the comments here are addressed, I'll do one more scan of the article for language that might be overly technical. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 19:29, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I couldn't find that specific example but it seems to me like spelling out even simple digits makes this less readable, so I backed out some of the spelling ones. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:14, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've done one more quick scan of the article. Most of the technical terms can stay, especially since many of them are wikilinked for further context. Just a few more things to look at:

I'll support promotion if all of these are changed or justified. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 16:41, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Jo-Jo Eumerus, I'm satisfied with the changes, and I support promoting this to FA. If you or any of the reviewers here are interested, I currently have an open FAC. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 16:06, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Image review: UndercoverClassicist

edit

Pass: All have free-use licenses which check out nicely, and good to see alt text throughout. UndercoverClassicist T·C 13:00, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Gog the Mild

edit

Recusing to review.

More to follow. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:50, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Noting here that I've seen this, but I can't process it until tomorrow. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:06, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There is no rush, but thanks for the notification. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:21, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. Could that be clarified in the article?

More to follow. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:21, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • "occurred first at Monte Pissis between 6.5 and 3.5 million years ago (mya). Later volcanism occurred south of Incapillo 4.7±0.5 mya". A (very) large part of the second range is not "Later" than the first. 0.7 my of it cannot be "Later".
  • "1.9±0.2 mya. Later, andesitic-rhyolitic volcanism formed ignimbrites and lava domes 2.9±0.4 – 1.1±0.4 mya". This "Later" has the same issue.
    Mended. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:22, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think that a sentence or two early on explaining what ignimbrite is and how it is formed would be helpful.
    I think these explanations are better left to footnotes (and there is currently one), they are distracting when in-text. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:22, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Gog the Mild (talk) 20:19, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Gog, how is this one going? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 19:31, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry Ian, this got lost in the mix. There is one minor issue for Jo-Jo to sort, but I don't see why that should stand in the way of my supporting. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:37, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

edit

Sources are reliable. Footnote numbers refer to this version.

  • Some inconsistencies in parameter use for journals and websites:
    • The publisher parameter is used in FNs 13 & 26 and in Kay & Mpodozis (2000), but not elsewhere.
    • You use a domain name rather than a website name for Kay & Mpodozis (2000).
    • You give a location for FN13 and Kay & Mpodozis (2000) but not elsewhere.
    • FN 26 does not use the website/work parameter.
  • It looks like cite GVP generates a publisher; I would think that's not ideal, but it's not this article's problem.

Links all work. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:49, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Adding on a question: is there a reasoning behind which sources are in the sources section, and which are simply defined in the reflist? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:05, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
AirshipJungleman29, those are called short footnotes or sfn, they are used when there are too many pages cited in an article towards the source. Learn more at Template:Sfn. GeraldWL 14:47, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think AirshipJungleman29 is familiar with sfn; in this case I think Jo-Jo has chosen to use shortened footnotes when a source is used more than once. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:01, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Mike, just checking that you consider this to be "consistently formatted inline citations using footnotes", especially "consistently"? Cheers. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:27, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's not a style I would use myself, because I think it looks odd, but since (if I've interpreted Jo-Jo's intentions correctly) there is a well-defined rule and it's consistently applied, I don't think it contravenes anything in WP:FACR. The other points I list above are issues, though. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 16:10, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
So, I see that on my one-week hiatus I missed this thing. In order:
  • The publisher thing is deliberate; only non-journals need it.
  • Changed.
  • Resolved.
  • I think it'd be duplicative relative to the other parameters.
The style thing is deliberate, but it's not something I use (anymore) except on some of the older articles I've written. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:32, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Pass. Fixes look good. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:12, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Closing comment – Jo-Jo Eumerus, please make sure to resolve Gog's final concern. I spotted two WP:SEAOFBLUE links ("Incapillo is a Pleistocene caldera" and "The Nazca plate subducts beneath the South American plate"). It would be nice if you could find a way to avoid the links appearing as a single one, but none of these issues are worth delaying promotion over. FrB.TG (talk) 05:53, 22 October 2023 (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/Incapillo/archive1&oldid=1181335515"