Talk:Huaynaputina/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Daß Wölf (talk · contribs) 14:47, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'll be reviewing this article. I'll start the review today or tomorrow. Daß Wölf 14:47, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Review

Congratulations on writing this excellent and informative article! Apologies for the wait, I'm fairly busy in real life at the moment, so I won't be able to complete the review in one go. The suggestions may be a bit haphazard since I'm not reading it in top to bottom order as I actually came across this article several months ago.

Is there a reason for having both {{refn}} and {{efn}} footnotes? Considering there're three of them total I suggest merging.
"... magma — known as "Dacite 1" — into ..." and others - per MOS:DASH these should be spaced ndashes or unspaced mdashes
"The researchers recommended more extensive seismometer coverage of the area and regular sampling of fumaroles, as well as reconnaissance of georadar and self potential of the volcano." - Does "self potential" refer to spontaneous potential?
The foreign words in the Name sectionshould be italicised and not in quotes per MOS:WORDSASWORDS and MOS:FOREIGNITALIC.
"Ash fall was also reported in an area of 300,000 km2 (120,000 sq mi) across Peru, Chile and Bolivia mostly west and south from the volcano, including in La Paz,[13] Lima, Cuzco, Camana where it was thick enough to cause palm trees to collapse, Potosi, Arica as well as in Lima where it was accompanied by sounds of explosions" - Lima is mentioned twice
"Despite the damage, in Arequipa recovery was fast." - suggest: "Despite the damage, recovery was fast in Arequipa."
- "The city of Arequipa went from being a relatively wealthy city to be a place of famine and disease in the years after the eruption. Despite the damage, in Arequipa recovery was fast." - a timespan for the fast recovery would be useful, these sentences seem to contradict each other right now
"In Arequipa, a new patron saint, San Genaro, was named after the eruption and veneration of Martha — who was believed to have power over earthquakes — increased; she became the city's sole patron saint in 1693." - suggest rewording; this is a bit of a garden path sentence, San Genaro didn't get his name due to the eruption and the veneration of Martha
"... mythology held that the lack of sacrifices had upset the devil and had sent a large snake ..." - is "devil, who had sent ..." meant?

Made these tweaks so far, except for the endashes and the italics. I think the article already uses endashes with spaces - isn't that the correct way? And I am not a fan of italicizing foreign words, since I think it others foreign words. I did remove the quotation marks though. I also do not know the answer to the contradictory sentences. Jo-Jo Eumerus - do you happen to remember the details there? ceranthor 03:18, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

From memory, it's a distinction between the city recovering quickly and the whole region taking longer.

Also, Ceranthor, I don't think that the {{efn}} notes should have been merged into the reference section; they are not citations, but explanatory supplements. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 06:02, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Jo-Jo Eumerus: Happy to restore them - but did you want to keep it exactly as is? Because only one of them was in the "nb/note" format as they were; the other two were formatted like regular references. ceranthor 12:52, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I've restored them; the purpose of having them was to explain stuff that would break the flow if put in text, which is a different purpose from that of a reference. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:36, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Ceranthor and Jo-Jo Eumerus: Again sorry for the wait. Re: efn/refn I meant to choose just one of these, i.e. change the sole refn into an efn, or change the efns into refns. Re: endashes, those were actually emdashes, I've changed them to spaced endashes. Daß Wölf 19:55, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

{{convert}}

I've changed a number of {{convert}} templates to use the abbreviated form ({{cvt}}), and substituted text such as 0.5 km by smaller units. IME depictions of "0.x" quantities of large metric units are rarely seen except in ranges (as in e.g. 0.3-2.7 km). Feel free to revert as you see fit, especially the abbreviated forms. I think they look more neat but IMO they don't matter for the "well written" criterion.
Re: forms such as "18-metre thick" - per MOS:HYPHEN either two hyphens should be used (e.g. "18-metre-thick (59 ft)", {{convert|18|m|ft|adj=mid|-thick}}) or IMO writing "18 m (59 ft) thick" would also be fine.
"The impact was also noticeable in Arequipa, where up to 0.98 metres (3.2 ft) of ash fell ..." - This looks like the author of the book probably encountered a figure of 1 m in research and converted it to 3.2 ft. (Besides, is it feasible to differentiate between a 98 cm and a 100 cm ashfall?) If that's the case then it would be better to use "1 m (3.2 ft)" or "up to a metre (3.2 ft)".
I've changed "120 kilometres (75 mi)[1]-130 kilometres (81 mi) away" to "120[1]–130 km (75–81 mi) away". It might be useful to repeat the ref in the following sentence next to "130", assuming that's the one supporting this figure.
Recommend linking the first appearance of "tons" in the table to metric ton (assuming that's what the researches were using) to avoid confusion with short/long ton.
"The springs have temperatures of about 22.8–75.4 °C" - sounds rather specific for "about". How about "ranging from 22.8 to 75.4 °C (73.0–167.7 °F)"?
"1.94 W/m2" - feel free to change this to "watts per square metre" if that's what you prefer. I've removed the convert template as I don't think I've ever seen an imperial unit used for Earth's insolation. Daß Wölf 18:55, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Got all of these. I'm not sure about the ref repetition; could you chime in on that one, Jo-Jo Eumerus? ceranthor 00:31, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Um, sorry, @Ceranthor:, which ref repetition? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 14:13, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I presume the fourth bullet point - to be more specific: "Flooding ensued when volcanic dams in the Río Tambo broke,[80] and debris[166] and lahars reached the Pacific Ocean 120[1]–130 km (75–81 mi) away. Occasionally the flows that reached the Pacific Ocean have been described as pyroclastic flows.[167]". If the [167] ref is the source for the 130 km figure, IMO it would be prudent to add it directly to the figure (ie. "120^[1]–130^[167] km") to avoid losing it if the sentences get rearranged in the future. Daß Wölf 22:38, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Given how densely packed the references are already, I am not convinced that this would be a good move. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:45, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

OK. Daß Wölf 13:51, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Second round

Río Tambo appears to use the diacritic (per es:Río Tambo (Moquegua)).
"There volcanic activity has since the Jurassic moved from the present-day coast region ..." - I believe there's a comma missing at "There,"
"During the Tertiary, these were overlaid by a total of 0.3–0.5 kilometres (0.19–0.31 mi) ignimbritic Capillune, Llallahui[8] and Sencca Formations." / "During the Tertiary, these were overlaid by a total of 300–500 m (0.2–0.3 mi) ignimbritic Capillune, Llallahui[8] and Sencca Formations." - it seems to me there's a word missing here, I'd rather write e.g. "300-500 m of ignimbritic..." or "300-500 metres thick ignimbritic" or even "300-500-metre ignimbritic" (although the latter sound a little awkward)
"Between 4,000–5,000 metres (13,000–16,000 ft) elevation ..." - suggest changing to "... of elevation" or "... in elevation"
"the Pastillo volcanic complex developed in the form of 0.5-kilometre (0.3 mi) thick andesitic rocks." - suggest "... of half a kilometre (0.3 mi) thick" or perhaps better, "... of half-a-kilometre-thick (0.3 mi) ..."
"There have been no eruptions since 1600; a report of an eruption in 1667 is unsubstantiated/unclear owing to the sparse historical information and probably reflects an eruption at Ubinas instead." - please reword per MOS:SLASH
"In 1962, there were reportedly no fumaroles within the amphitheatre, though presently fumaroles occur in the amphitheatre close to the three vents." - suggest rewording to "as of 2001" or "as of early 21th century" or a something else per MOS:DATED
"The eruption was accompanied by intense earthquakes, deafening explosions and noises that could be heard thousands of kilometres away, as far as Lima." - Can you check with the source here? Lima is only ≈800 km from Huaynaputina.
"tephrochronology marker" → "tephrochronological marker"
"The climate impact has been noted in the growth rings of a centuries-old ocean quahog, a mollusc that was found somewhere in Iceland ..." - The sentence is somewhat ambiguous. I presume it means this particular mollusc was found (somewhere) in Iceland, right?
Rewrote this a bit. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:45, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
"In the Andes however, the Little Ice Age ..." - MOS:HOWEVER
Are there any numerical estimates for the death toll?

Should have gotten all of these except the question about the explosions as far as Lima and the estimates for the death toll. Do you know if the sources clarify or mention those two issues, respectively, Jo-Jo Eumerus? Also, pinging Daß Wölf to take a look at the progress. ceranthor 23:27, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Ceranthor and Daß Wölf:Resolved the explosions thing but there is actually a death toll cited within the article. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:48, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Jo-Jo Eumerus and Ceranthor: RE: death toll - yes, there it is of course, sorry about that. No idea how it managed to slip past me... Re: progress, I'm satisfied with the changes, it seems to me that only the quahog and the 120[1]-130 item in the {{convert}} round remain. Daß Wölf 22:38, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Good Article review progress box

Criteria: 1a. prose () 1b. MoS () 2a. ref layout () 2b. cites WP:RS () 2c. no WP:OR () 2d. no WP:CV ()

3a. broadness () 3b. focus () 4. neutral () 5. stable () 6a. free or tagged images () 6b. pics relevant ()

Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked are unassessed

|}

I think that should cover it. Pinging nominator @Ceranthor: Daß Wölf 11:50, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Daß Wölf: Actually, Jo-Jo Eumerus wrote the vast majority of this article. I will be happy to work on these this weekend though. ceranthor 20:37, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Ceranthor:Thanks for proposing to work on this. I'll be hammering away at Quelccaya Ice Cap so I won't have much time to act on this GA review. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:06, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That's all then, passing the nom. Thank you for the hard work on the article and the review, Jo-Jo Eumerus and Ceranthor! Daß Wölf 13:51, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. it was a pretty interesting read, I suggest nominating it for DYK. Daß Wölf 13:55, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, according to the WP:DYKRULES articles such as this one which have appeared in the Wikipedia:On this day section are ineligible. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:59, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]