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]
I intend to review this over the coming days; please ping me if I haven't gotten to this by Monday. Hog FarmTalk 17:46, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"The summit may be either a lava dome or a pyroclastic cone," - the "the volcano" section doesn't make any indication that this Guallatiri could be a pyroclastic cone so far as I can tell and instead suggests it may be a volcanic plug
I hate dealing with disagreeing sources. Rewritten. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:19, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"Guallatiri has been active in historical times with a number of eruptions, the latest in 1960" - the article also mentions a poorly documented eruption in 1987?
Yes, but Global Volcanism Program does not accept it. I figure there is disagreement on whether it was an actual eruption or merely increased gas emissions. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:19, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"The term wallatiri means "abundance of the Andean goose" in Aymara[2] and refers to its frequent occurrence in the area" - this needs rephrased; as it stands the "its frequent occurrence" would grammatically be referring to the term wallatiri itself, not the geese
Since we are given conflicting height figures, how was 6,071 selected to be the one used for the lead and infobox?
Because Echevarria is probably the best source for elevation data. I've removed the figure from the lead and infobox, though. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:19, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If Echevarria 1963 and Echevarria 1999 are the same person, should the 6,087 figure that is currently source only to the 1963 source be ommitted as probably superceded if no other high-quality source for it can be found, since the author is now reporting a different figure for its height?
The infobox lists the volcanic field as the Nevados de Quimsachata in a matter as if this is certain, but the lead and body both indicate there is some debate about this
I just keep forgetting about the infobox, done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:19, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"and displays levees, ogives, polygonal cracks and blocky surfaces" - a link or gloss of some form is needed for ogives; this is not a common term
"The older Humurata and Acotango volcanoes are heavily eroded,[11] Capurata is better preserved.[30] " - I'm not sure that this is really on-topic for this article; all three of the peaks are separate for Guallatiri and no direct connection between this information and Guallatiri is made
I think it's valid contextual information since they are right next to each other. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:19, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"Tuffs and pyroclastic flow deposits occur both in the summit region and in radial valleys that emanate from Guallatiri,[34] although some of the valley deposits have been reinterpreted as being reworked sediments" - but then we have "Pyroclastic flow deposits extend to 10 kilometres (6.2 mi) distance from Guallatiri. Radiocarbon dating has yielded ages ranging between 6,255±41-140±30 years before present.[38] These flows are unrelated to the lava domes, which show no evidence of collapses that could have formed pyroclastic flows" later in the article; this seems to be at least a partial contradiction
Not seeing it - some valley deposits are sediments, other are pyroclastic flows. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:19, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
My concern is that the first passage suggests that it is possible that some or all of these pyroclastic flow deposits in the valley are related to Guallatiri, while the later bit seems to rule this out entirely. Hog FarmTalk 03:47, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"The composition of volcanic rocks ranges from andesite to rhyolite;[1] with dacites being predominant." - it is unclear if this sentence refers to volcanic rocks in general or to those at Guallatiri specifically
"Glaciología. "Glaciares del Volcán Guallatiri". Glaciología (in Spanish). Retrieved 2021-06-30." - this looks like the personal website of one Andres Rivera, what makes it high-quality RS
That had a few more issues, which I have now fixed. I kinda wonder if "Estudios Publicos" is a journal rather than a publisher, though. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:19, 3 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]
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]
"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."
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.
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]
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.
"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".
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?
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".
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]
"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.
"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.
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"?
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]
"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?
"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]
"Sulfur deposits are reported from its southern flank", Again, why the distancing "reported"? If they exist, why not simply say so?
That was hard to write, check if it works better now. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:21, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nice.
"Another subdivision". This is the first mention of a "subdivision".
This isn't a technical term, though; you "subdivide" a thing into components. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:21, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
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]
"six separate stages, of which the first four crop out mainly at the periphery of the volcano". A stage cannot "crop out". You need to say something like 'with extant evidence of the first four present in outcrops...'
"A further uncertain eruption took place in 1908". Does this mean that is uncertain if the eruption actually took place?
Yes, or whatever GVP defines as "uncertain". Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:21, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"additional poorly documented eruptions are reported from". Again the use of "reported". Are any of them known to have taken place? The current wording means that it is at least possible that none of the six took place.
That's the point. Activity of this volcano is not very well documented. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:21, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"Satellite imaging has not shown any evidence of ongoing deformation of the volcanic edifice." Is it known over what period this has been the case?
1992 and 2000, but the thing here is that it's a negative - no reports of deformation after 2000 does imply no deformation. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:21, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"15 metres (49 ft) long pahoehoe-like flows". "metres" should be singular. (Or you could say 'pahoehoe-like flows 15 metres (49 ft) long'.) And is 49ft false precision.
Yes, but here I am less certain on the sigfig. I dunno how to change the plural. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:06, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Liquid sulfur has formed 15 metres (49 ft) long pahoehoe-like flows." This suggests to the uninitiated that the sulfur is (still) liquid.
Not sure how to correct that impression. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:06, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"The volcano produces between 123±47 and 50±12 t/d of sulfur dioxide". What's t/d? Abbreviations in full at first mention?
"Guallatiri is ranked second in the Chilean scale of dangerous volcanoes[45] and is the 30th most dangerous in the country." How can it be both 2nd and 30th?
Corrected, but I am afraid that the scale isn't well explained anywhere. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:06, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Volcano hazard maps have been published." Of Guallatiri or of volcanos in Chile as a whole? (Or both I suppose.)
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]
It seems weird that the height isn't mentioned in the lead. Looking at other volcano FAs, they generally include it, and it seems like the sort of information a reader would expect to find there.
"Other names are Punata (also an Aymara word).." Do we know what this means / why it is given this name? Also, "Punata" should also be in a ((lang)) template.
Why does the prose give two possible heights plus the possibility of further hand-wavy variation, while the infobox only gives one, precise value?
'cause I forgot to remove it from Wikidata, which is now done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:29, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"..make up the edifice." What does "edifice" mean here? My only understanding of it is as a synonym of building?
"Edifice" is the term I used to describe the volcano and its rocks as a whole. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:29, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"The lava flows have a lobate appearance even when they are heavily eroded, and display levees, ogives, polygonal cracks.." What do "lobate" and "levees" mean?
Same as in the colloquial meaning. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:29, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know the colloquial meanings. Are there pages we can link to on either Wikipedia or Wiktionary? Harrias(he/him) •talk 18:31, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Domo Tinto is 100 metres (330 ft) wide and 100 metres (330 ft) high while Domo Sur is 120 metres (390 ft) thick and 750 metres (2,460 ft) wide." Why is one measured in width and height, and the other in thickness and width? Are height and thickness the same, or different measures?
The source uses two different terms with no explanation. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:29, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Above 5,500 metres (18,000 ft)–5,800 metres (19,000 ft) elevation the volcano is covered with ice.." Again, we are given a range here, while the lead gives a single value?
"..and thicknesses of 15 metres (0.015 km). Shouldn't we convert this into imperial, not a different order of magnitude of metric?
Probably a typo when trying to fix excessive precision, solved. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:29, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"..between 13,500 and 8,900 years ago[e].[40]" Moved the footnote after the full-stop.
This kind of footnote is put after the word it pertains to, not after punctuation where I put the references. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:29, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate that, but the MOS doesn't differentiate between the types; where they appear adjacent to punctuation, they should be after it, not before. Harrias(he/him) •talk 19:33, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I've merged that footnote into the text. As for other footnotes, the MOS itself says "occasional exceptions will apply" and I do attach footnotes to the statement they pertain to, which is often not an entire sentence. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 18:55, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I basically skipped the Geology section because it is too technical for me to follow. I will trust that it is fine. It needs to be technical, so I'm not going to complain that I can't follow it.
I realize that this is mostly technical terms such as the name of minerals and volcanoes. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:29, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"..and the wetlands – Bofedales – in the.." I'd suggest using ((lang-es)) here, to get: "..and the wetlands (Spanish: Bofedales) in the.." The endashes just break up the sentences too much for my liking at the moment.
"..are visible for more than 201 kilometres (125 mi).." I'm guessing the source is using 125 miles as a rounded figure, so I'd recommend rounding 201 km to 200.
Let's see if the sigfig solves the problem. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:29, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Guallatiri is ranked second in the Chilean scale of dangerous volcanoes and is the 30th most dangerous in the country." I'd suggest rewording this; it took me a couple of reads to work out that the first half wasn't saying that it was the second most dangerous. Something vaguely along the lines of "Guallatiri appears in the second-most dangerous tier of volcanoes according to the Chilean scale, and is the 30th most..."
It looks like some of the Mythology and religious importance has been added recently by another editor, and it doesn't really flow with the rest of the article right now. It could do with rewriting to match the style of the article, and improve the formatting.
Yeah, that was added only a few days ago by @The Arjhatiri:. I've rearranged it but problem is it's a book and I don't have access to it. I've asked the editor who added it. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:29, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Harrias:Got the pertinent content by The Arjhatiri here and rewrote a bit, accordingly. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:09, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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]
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]
Is there a need for this paragraph to be a section by itself? It's not even about a single topic; what it's called and who climbed it have very little to do with each other.
Yes, because it's about the way people treat the mountain and I don't like micro-paragraphs on FACses. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:54, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Huallatiri, Huallatire[6] and Guallatire[7]" what language do these come from?
Alternative transliterations I presume, but source does not specify. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:54, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"The volcano is considered to be easy to ascend" should be attributed to who offered that opinion.
According to the French Grade (climbing) scale, from John Biggar I presume. Dunno if that needs spelling out. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:54, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, please. Something like, "It is rated a grade XXX climb by (whoever assigns these ratings)". Looking at Panajew and Galas, I don't see anything that supports "The volcano is considered to be easy to ascend" In fact, the abstract says, "The authors describe the grueling trekking trails". RoySmith(talk) 23:29, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
They do say The climb is not technically difficult (grade F on the IFAS scale) but I spelled it out intext. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:16, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"it has a cemetery, a 17th-century church and a refuge of the National Forest Corporation" does knowing this improve the reader's understanding of the volcano?
Of things that are potentially threatened and what climbers can do there, yes, but I removed the cemetery mention as a cemetery is kinda routine. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:54, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"130 kilometres (81 mi) farther west," I think "further" is the preferred spelling.
Hmm, Googleing says that both are acceptable for physical distances. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:54, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Economic activity in the area includes..." as above, is this relevant to the main subject?
It's a bit of contextual information, which is asked for by WP:WIAFA; Guallatiri doesn't exactly rise in the middle of nowhere. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:54, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Possible reasons include ... or ..." I think you want "and" here; it's a list of things that make up the set of possible reasons.
"The volcano is remote and thus poorly known." That's an odd sentence. Maybe something along the lines of, "Due to the remoteness from large population centers, few expeditions to Guallatiri have been undertaken and little is known about it"? (assuming the source actually supports that).
Unfortunately all the source says is Due to its remote location little is known about the volcano. It's kind of a given that volcanoes in this region are poorly understood. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:54, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"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
"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]
"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.
(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.)
You define NVZ, CVZ, and SVZ as acronyms. Two of those are never used, so no reason to define them. CVS is used, but only twice, in the immediately following paragraph. It would read better if that was rephrased to avoid the acronym.
Eh, I think "Central Volcanic Zone volcano" reads a bit weird. Removed the other acronyms though. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:44, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The three links in Northern Volcanic Zone (NVZ), Central Volcanic Zone (CVZ) and Southern Volcanic Zone (SVZ) all go to the same article. Maybe rephrase this as "...responsible for the volcanism of the Andean Volcanic Belt, which is divided into norther, central, and southern zones".
That's a quirk in how Wikipedia has set up its pages, not in how the topic is discussed elsewhere where each of the volcanic zone is often discussed separately. I'd rather not do this. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:44, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"ranges from andesite to rhyolite,[1] with dacites being predominant" To me, "range" implies some continuous spectrum ("particle sizes range from 0.1 mm to 0.7 mm"). Is that the case here? Are dacites a type of rock which falls on that spectrum between those two endpoints? This needs to be clarified.
"a potassium-rich calc-alkaline suite and contain". "and contain" -> "which contains"?
No, it's a property of the rocks rather than the suite. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:44, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Fumaroles have deposited minerals such as anhydrite ..." -> "Fumaroles have deposited mostly anhydrite ..."
Kinda wonder if this suggests that we are talking about anhydrite, though. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:44, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Sulfur deposits occur on its southern flank", I assume "it" refers to Guallatri, but you have to work your way all the way back to the previous paragraph to find that, so be more explicit here.
There's so many wikilinks here, it's hard to read. I don't have a concrete suggestion for how to improve that. Maybe some other reviewer could suggest something? Would this work better as a bullet list?
Eh, I think here it works better as a prose list. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:44, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"The older Umurata and Acotango volcanoes are heavily eroded;[13] Capurata is better preserved.[32]" this sentence seems out of place with the rest of the paragraph.
It's not clear what "Guallatiri I" and "Guallatiri II" mean. Are these terms that some specific author used? In which case, "What Jorquera (or whoever) has called..."
"Another subdivision envisages six[j] separate stages" This is unclear. I think what this paragraph is trying to say is "Jorquera et al. in 2019 described a two-stage history where "Guallatiri I" grew in the form of andesitic and dacitic lava flows ... In 2021, Sepúlveda et al. proposed an alternate scheme, with six separate stages ..." Including the years in the attributions is useful to show how one author built their work on the other's previous report.
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]
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]
"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
"initially attributed to Acotango volcano": "to the Acotango volcano"?
I am not sure that that is better. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 18:55, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure the grammar is right, but no-one else seems to be objecting to it, so maybe its just me! - SchroCat (talk) 10:40, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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]
Support - Nice article on something I didn't even know existed before I started. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 11:09, 13 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]
Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the ((featured article candidates)) template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. FrB.TG (talk) 14:59, 17 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.