Talk:Lascar (volcano)

Archives

This page has archives. Sections older than 180 days may be automatically archived by when more than 3 sections are present.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Lascar (volcano) article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1: 180 days

Lascar (volcano) has been listed as one of the Geography and places good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
January 23, 2017	Good article nominee	Not listed
October 10, 2017	Good article nominee	Listed
October 23, 2017	Good article nominee	Not listed
March 4, 2018	Good article nominee	Listed

A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on October 23, 2017.

The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that Lascar volcano (pictured) has created at least one mushroom?

Current status: Good article

Chile High‑importance

	Chile portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Chile, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Chile on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChileWikipedia:WikiProject ChileTemplate:WikiProject ChileChile articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Mountains High‑importance

	Mountains portal This article is part of WikiProject Mountains, a project to systematically present information on mountains. If you would like to participate, you can choose to edit the article attached to this page (see Contributing FAQ for more information), or visit the project page where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.MountainsWikipedia:WikiProject MountainsTemplate:WikiProject MountainsMountain articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Volcanoes High‑importance

	Volcanoes portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Volcanoes, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of volcanoes, volcanology, igneous petrology, and related subjects on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.VolcanoesWikipedia:WikiProject VolcanoesTemplate:WikiProject VolcanoesWikiProject Volcanoes articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Guild of Copy Editors

This article was copy edited by Twofingered Typist, a member of the Guild of Copy Editors, on 21 December 2016.Guild of Copy EditorsWikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy EditorsTemplate:WikiProject Guild of Copy EditorsGuild of Copy Editors articles

The following references may be useful when improving this article in the future:

GA removed[edit]

I have removed the Good Article status from this article, as even a cursory glance indicates a lot of (probably minor) issues which should have been spotted and corrected before this was promoted. I have noted some findings, which are not an exhaustive list, at WT:DYK#Lascar (volcano) removed from Main Page. Fram (talk) 09:22, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Commented there. I had a bad feeling about this review from the outset. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:22, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it seems to have taken the reviewer at most half an hour, as they were still busy with another GA review at 13.54 on 10 October, and started and passed this GA review in one go at 14.26 the same day. That's rather fast to judge a 100 kB article with 206 references... Fram (talk) 15:38, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jo-Jo Eumerus, how would you like to proceed here? Possibilities include fixing the identified issues (and perhaps doing a review for more), and then renominating, or treating this as a reversion and putting the nomination back into the pool of unreviewed nominations to look for a new and competent reviewer (this latter way it retains its seniority). Please let me know your preference. I'll drop a note on the reviewer's page letting them know about the reversion and suggesting that they gain more experience in creating and improving articles before they do another review, given what they missed in this one. BlueMoonset (talk) 19:14, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@BlueMoonset: I was thinking of renominating this, but as Khajidha noted there are some prose problems that I cannot easily resolve on my own. I could ask for copyediting, but where? (In addition, now that I checked GS a bit more, there are some newer sources I may need to review). So I am thinking of renominating the article, but not immediately. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:38, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Jo-Jo Eumerus: When you're done with any content changes, you can request copy-editing via WP:GOCE. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:46, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Took a stab at updating it and compiled some unused sources on my talk page. @Nikkimaria: Well, the article was already copyedited before I nominated it for GA for the first time, so I am not sure if a second pass would necessarily catch all problems that persisted. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:57, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Gave it an update. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:56, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@BlueMoonset: Check me on this: This article was about 8 hours on the mainpage; would it be eligible for a re-DYK or was that too long? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 10:16, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jo-Jo Eumerus, I didn't look at how long it had run when I posted back in October. Looking at it now, it had nearly nine hours on the front page, and as the lead hook at that, which to me is definitely too long to warrant a new run. It's longer than an article would get if we were doing three sets a day, and very close to the two sets length (and we were running two sets earlier in the year). Sorry this isn't better news. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:19, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

OK, was just checking. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:43, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What to call an "eruption"[edit]

This is about Giormark2's edit. I am not sure that we can count a single plume as an "eruption"; Lascar is one of these volcanoes that emit plumes all the time, and even if we do, we should probably describe it instead of just saying "eruption". FWIW, GVP doesn't say "eruption" and SERNAGEOMIN merely bumped their warning levels a bit. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:29, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Jo-Jo Eumerus: According to an article by the US National Parks service, Volcanic plumes of ash and/or rock may count as a phreatic eruption should it be caused by "steam explosions due to the superheating of groundwater by a magmatic source". However, I could not find any reliable sources regarding the cause of the recent plumes yet, so I will agree with you to mention it as a plume or simply as "increased volcanic activity" for now. Pentagon 2057 (T/C) 10:26, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Rewrote the entry a little to account for this event, but I'll hold off changing the infobox for now. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:10, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Human sacrifices on Lascar?[edit]

"Mountains of Fire: The Menace, Meaning, and Magic of Volcanoes." Publishers Weekly, vol. 270, no. 28, 10 July 2023, p. 50. Gale Academic OneFile, link.gale.com/apps/doc/A758336739/AONE?u=wikipedia&sid=bookmark-AONE&xid=ac4489d4. Accessed 9 Jan. 2024. says that there were human sacrifices to the volcano, but I don't see any other source claiming this. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:44, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]