Talk:Tutupaca

Copyediting notes

I've done a bit of copyediting, but need to understand things a bit better to be sure I don't screw anything up.

• Why do we have two different heights for the western summit of the two northerly peaks? We state one as if it's definitive, but then cite another source; is that source just as reliable?
• I think readers unfamiliar with the usage are likely to stumble over "edifice", as I did when I started reading these articles. Do we have a glossary of geological terms that we could link to?
• In the paragraph starting "The whole edifice rises", a "western summit" is mentioned; is this in the older complex? We haven't mentioned any east-west details for that complex to this point, so this is confusing if so. Similarly, does "between the two peaks" refer to the newer northerly peaks?
• It looks like "western Tutupaca" is the western one of the two northerly peaks, and "eastern Tutupaca" is the other; I'm going to establish that in the article, so correct me if that's not so.
• The occurrence of trachyandesite and trachyte has also been described. The volcanic rocks erupted during the Holocene define a potassium-rich calc-alkaline suite. I can see the first source but not the second; it looks as if both these are general statements about the overall volcano, and don't refer specifically to the older complex or newer peaks. Is that correct? If so I think this paragraph should be organized so the reader can see the distinction -- from the general to the specific, if possible.
• the origin of a 6–8 kilometres (3.7–5.0 mi) long avalanche deposit: should this be "debris avalanche deposit"? Perhaps this is implied in geology, but for the general reader it's as well to avoid misinterpretations caused by ignorance.
• You have both "Laguna Suches" and "Lake Suches"; we should pick one.
• The total surface area covered by the collapse is about 12–13 kilometres (7.5–8.1 mi), the pyroclastic flow reached both Lake Suches north of the volcano and the Callazas River east of it: I don't see the connection between the two halves of this sentence. This is the Paipatja pyroclastic flow we're talking about? Was this flow associated with the collapse? I understood the flow to be a pre-existing formation that was overrun by the debris avalanche. If so, the extent of the flow and the extent of the avalanche are unconnected. (After a bit of Googling): it appears an older version of this article says the sequence was a pyroclastic flow named Suri Phuju, then the debris avalanche, then the Paipatja pyroclastic flow, which overlays the debris. If that's correct I don't think we should be saying that the flow divides the units.
• one unit featuring 100–200 metres (330–660 ft) long hummock-like hills like other avalanches from volcanoes: we say "like other avalanches from volcanoes", but then apparently the ridges have also been observed in other collapse deposits. Are these hummock-like hills the more usual form for a long debris avalanche?

Pausing there for now to review these points. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:51, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

Responding in order:

• I don't know if any source is more reliable than the other for the height, but I suspect that the GVP is relying on older and thus less reliable measurements while Samaniego 2015 is a more recent one - plus, other sources use the higher estimates. Many mountains in the world do not have definitively determined elevations, see Mount Everest and Ojos del Salado for examples.

  I reworked it to make it more apparent to the reader that this is a comparison of two sources. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:41, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

  Yeah, that is technical speak that I only use because the other two words are "volcano" and "mountain". I've replaced it here with "volcano".

  The west-east summits are mentioned one paragraph farther up; they are the two northern summits.

  Correct; the older complex farther south has little topographical preminence.

  Samaniego 2015 only discusses the Holocene eruption products; I am fairly certain the older ones are also calc-alkaline but that'd be original research.

  Changed it.

  Standardized and removed link because Laguna Suches is a lake in the Cordillera Apolobamba and not in the Cordillera Volcanica. Would it be better to use "lake"?

  I think so -- since it's a red link there's no easy way for a non-Spanish speaker to tell what is being referred to. I've made the change. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:36, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

  Oh, that caused some confusion for me as well. There was apparently one pyroclastic flow (the one discussed in the previous article version) which was erupted at some point before the collapse - Zuripujo - (in this version I discuss it under Shortly before the collapse[e], a pyroclastic flow was erupted from the volcano with the note under [e] saying Stratigraphic relations imply that this pyroclastic flow pre-dates the main collapse, but radiocarbon dating does not have a sufficient resolution to separate the two events in time.) and then another pyroclastic flow - Paipatja - during the collapse. I had some difficulty at finding the correct flow for this sentence; I've rewritten it but I am not sure if it's much better now.

  I think part of the problem is that the information is distributed across two sections. I can see why; you can't really leave it out of either morphology or eruptive history. How about rephrasing The deposit is mostly confined within glacial valleys and is subdivided into two units which are separated from each other by the Paipatja pyroclastic flow. The Paipatja pyroclastic flow reached both Laguna Suchez north of the volcano and the Callazas River east of it as "The deposit is mostly confined within glacial valleys and is overlaid by the Paipatja pyroclastic flow which divides the debris into two units. The pyroclastic flow reaches both Laguna Suchez north of the volcano and the Callazas River east of it." This gives it as structure (present tense) rather than events (past tense); the events narrative can be saved for the eruptive history section. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:59, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

  @Mike Christie: "Overlaid" implies that it lies above the entire unit, I think, "interlaid" is apparently an actual word so that may be better. But yes, you are right about the structure. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 11:49, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

  Yes, hummocks are typical features of debris avalanche deposits. See for example doi:10.1016/0377-0273(84)90002-7

Mike Christie Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 13:08, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

• I was trying to figure out how to rephrase The occurrence of trachyandesite and trachyte has also been described, and I see the source cites it to "De La Cruz, N. & De La Cruz, O.: Memoria explicativa de la revisión geológica del cuadrángulo de Tarata (35-v), informe inédito. Lima. Instituto Geológico Minero y Metalúrgico, (2001), 19 p." Would it be worth trying to get hold of this, e.g. via WP:RX? Pauccara and Matsuda say "The Tutupaca volcano consists of an alternating sequence of pumice pyroclastic flows and ash with massive blocks. It is followed by an important sequence of andesitic and trachytic lavas flows, and finally a trachyandesitics debris flow tuff with abundant hornblende crystals containing, biotite, pyroxene and quartz." Do you think the original source would have more details?
• The volcanic rocks erupted during the Holocene define a potassium-rich calc-alkaline suite. Dacites from eastern Tutupaca contain amphibole, apatite, biotite, clinopyroxene, iron-titanium oxides, orthopyroxene, plagioclase, quartz and sphene. You say above that Samaniego 2015 is only talking about Holocene eruption products, so how about joining these two sentences so it's clear that applies to the second one? I know we said earlier that only eastern Tutupaca is Holocene, but we could remind the reader at this point: "The Holocene-era eruption products of eastern Tutupaca define a potassium-rich calc-alkaline suite, and its dacites contain amphibole, apatite, biotite, clinopyroxene, iron-titanium oxides, orthopyroxene, plagioclase, quartz and sphene."

More tonight. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:07, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

In order:

• Posted a request, it might have some more specs.
• The exact source text is Based on 30 whole-rock major and trace element analyses, the Holocene eruptive products of Tutupaca volcano are classified as high-K calc-alkaline dacites (Fig.9). All samples from the Eastern Tutupaca domes display a very restricted dacitic composition and so on with the exxact minerals later. I am not sure if there is any significance to the fact that Samaniego 2015 differentiates here between "Holocene eruptive products of Tutupaca volcano" and "Eastern Tutupaca domes".

@Mike Christie: Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 21:18, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

• Notes b and c are repeated in the text; I think you can cut the notes -- the information reads OK in the body of the article.

-- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:27, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

• Removed note b; as for note c which is now b I was thinking that integrating that text into the article breaks the flow. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 10:52, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

  On second thoughts I agree with you. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:05, 17 March 2018 (UTC)`

• Off the coast of Peru, the Nazca Plate subducts at 5–6 centimetres per year (2.0–2.4 in/year) beneath the South America Plate.[24][10] This subduction process is responsible for the volcanism in the Central Volcanic Zone[c] of the Andes, which includes the volcanoes of Peru's Western Cordillera.[24] (The Central Volcanic Zone is one of four volcanic belts in the Andes, together with the Northern Volcanic Zone, the Southern Volcanic Zone and the Austral Volcanic Zone.[25]) Aside from Tutupaca, Peru also features the volcanoes Sara Sara, Solimana, Coropuna, Andagua volcanic field, Ampato-Sabancaya, Chachani, El Misti, Ubinas, Huaynaputina, Ticsani, Yucamane and Casiri.[10] Major historical eruptions happened at El Misti 2,000 years ago and at Huaynaputina in 1600.[24] I'd like to change this to: "Off the coast of Peru, the Nazca Plate subducts at 5–6 centimetres per year (2.0–2.4 in/year) beneath the South America Plate, causing volcanism in three of the four volcanic belts in the Andes, including the Central Volcanic Zone, where Tutupaca is located. Other Peruvian volcanos include Sara Sara, Solimana, Coropuna, Andagua volcanic field, Ampato-Sabancaya, Chachani, Ubinas, Ticsani, Yucamane, and Casiri. Major eruptions have occurred at El Misti, 2,000 years ago, and at Huaynaputina, in 1600." (After the mention of the CVZ, put a note with what's currently in parentheses.) This is enough of a rework that I wanted to check it with you. Also, we list Peruvian volcanoes, but the CVZ includes Chilean volcanoes too, doesn't it? Any reason to include these specifically? Does the list of other volcanoes add to the reader's understanding? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:19, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

  I was thinking that adding a list of Chilean volcanoes was slightly offtopic. The list of Peruvian volcanoes was mostly for context reasons. That rewrite seems fine for me. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:18, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

  OK, done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:13, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

• Tutupaca is about 700,000 years old.[29] The older complex was active at first with lava flows and then with a major explosive eruption,[3] all of which took place over 25,000 years before present.: It seems a little odd to say that the volcano is about 700 ky old, and then say it's "first" activity was over 25,000 years ago. I see Scandiffio et al says "The age of Tutupaca volcano is estimated around 0.7 M.a", but I can't see Samaniego et al.; what does it say exactly?
• I think the "1802? eruption" heading should go; the 1802 eruption is mentioned in the prior paragraph and it would be natural to combine them.
• their occurrence is supported by radiocarbon dating of eruption products: Do Samaniego and Valderrama directly contradict each other re whether these are Tutupaca or Yucamane eruptions? If not I think we can combine these sentences and shorten things.
• I'm also curious to know how the radiocarbon dating is used; eruption products are surely always geologically old carbon, so I would have thought the dating would have been done on charcoal fragments found in the eruption mate
• 218 ± 14 years before present[20], probably in 1802: this is inconsistent, isn't it? 1950 - 218 = 1732. If "present" means "date of the paper" I would make it either "152 ± 14 years before present" with the link to BP, or "1798 ± 14 years", to avoid tying the estimate to the date of the paper.

-- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:33, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

@Mike Christie: Thanks for the further commentary. In order again:

• Samaniego does not say anything about when Tutupaca started being active, they infer from glaciation leftovers that it was over 25,000 years ago which can mean anything. The exact text is . These moraines are probably formed during the Last Glacial Maximum (LGM), which has been broadly dated at 17–25 ka in the Western Cordillera of the Peruvian Andes (Smith et al. 2008; Bromley et al. 2009)... This ignimbrite deposit is covered by the LGM moraines, suggesting an age older than 25 ka.

  I think that given Scandiffio's statement of age is unqualified, we can cut the "over 25,000 years" comment as adding nothing -- the context for Samaniego's sentence is the moraines. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:40, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

• I was thinking that the 1802 eruption had enough information to merit its own header, while the preceding text was a general listing of eruptions.

  Well, yes, it does have more information, but it's mentioned in the prior section and I think it would be a natural flow. Personally I don't like short subsections; they break up flow, although sometimes they're necessary. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:40, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

• Valderrama does not discuss Yucamane. Originally it was believed these eruptions occurred at Tutupaca, but the fact that Yucamane is less eroded induced researchers to believe that they actually occurred there. Samaniego demonstrated that Holocene eruptions occurred at Tutupaca and (in a separate paper cited on Yucamane) that Yucamane last erupted about 3,000 years ago, and thus inferred that the historical eruptions occurred on Tutupaca.

  Samaniego's argument that Yucumane last erupted 3,000 years ago might be worth mentioning in the text. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:40, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

• The paper does explicitly say before present and the exact text is esults of this calibration procedure show that the five samples are statistically identical at a 95 % confidence level with a pooled mean of 218±14 aBP. The calibrated calendar age for this average 14C age yields two age spans, the most important being 1731–1802 cal AD period (with a relative area of 85 %). We emphasise that the two historic eruptions (1787–89 and 1802 AD) reported by Zamácola y Jaúregui (1804) and Valdivia (1847) fall at the end of this period.. This is just odd. BTW, the reason why the collapse is linked to the 1802 eruption is because historical reports indicate that the 1802 eruption was stronger than the 1787-1789 one.

  Ah, the range is uncalibrated. I should have spotted that, since I wrote most of our radiocarbon dating article. I think this should be clearer to the reader, though; "BP" without "cal" means uncalibrated, but perhaps a note attached to the range explaining that this is uncalibrated, with a link? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:40, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

Aside, seems like this needs a bit more work than what I was expecting. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:55, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

I agree with the proposed changes. I'll write a note on Yucamane. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 14:28, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

Given the conversation above, here's a possible rewrite for the 1802 section and the paragraph just above it.

There are reports of eruptions in 1780, 1787, 1802, 1862 and 1902 which are supported by radiocarbon dating of eruption products. Some authors believed that Yucamane volcano was a more likely source for these eruptions, but Samaniego argued [demonstrated?] that Yucumane last erupted 3,000 years ago, implying that the reported eruptions most likely occurred at Tutupaca. The 1787-1789 and 1802 reports are now regarded as definitely eruptions of Tutupaca.

The sector collapse of eastern Tutupaca was accompanied by an eruption that was among the largest in Peruvian history, reaching a volcanic explosivity index of 3 or 4. Contemporaneous chronicles document ashfall as far as 165 kilometres (103 mi) south in Arica. The collapse has been dated to 1731-1802 with high probability[note], and is thought to be associated with the 1802 eruption since historical reports indicate it was stronger than the 1787-1789 eruption. Shortly before the collapse[e], a pyroclastic flow was erupted from the volcano, probably as a consequence of the collapse of a lava dome, and formed a deposit on the east flank of Tutupaca,[32] which reaches thicknesses of 6 metres (20 ft). The previous eruption may have destabilized the volcano and thus triggered the main collapse, which also generated the Paipatja pyroclastic flow. The area was thinly inhabited at the time and thus the impact of the eruption was small.

Today fumaroles occur on the summit of Tutupaca.

The [note] would say something like "The uncalibrated radiocarbon age of the samples is 218±14 years before present, with 95% confidence; the calibrated age consists of two ranges, with an 85% probability that the date lies between 1731 and 1802."

I changed "radiocarbon dating of eruption productions" to just "radiocarbon dating" since it seems impossible that the actual eruption products could have been dated. I included your note about why the 1802 eruption is thought to be associated with the collapse; I don't know which source that comes from. How does it look? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:40, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

The source for "collapse probably occurred in 1802" is Samaniego 2015, p.13. To me There are reports of eruptions in 1780, 1787, 1802, 1862 and 1902 which are supported by radiocarbon dating of eruption products. sounds like we are saying that radiocarbon dating supports the existence of each eruption, which is not correct. Sourcing the "now believed to be at Tutupaca" is dicey, I'd probably use the GVP citation, the impression I have is that this is the now accepted consensus not just Samaniego's opinion. and is thought to be associated with the 1802 eruption since historical reports indicate it was stronger than the 1787-1789 eruption., that is logical inference but Samaniego 2015 does not explicitly give this thought process. Other than these points I like the rewrite. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 14:26, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

Here's another draft that tries to take those points into account:

There are reports of eruptions in 1780, 1787, 1802, 1862 and 1902, supported by radiocarbon dates showing there were eruptions during this period. Some authors believed that Yucamane volcano was a more likely source for these eruptions, but Samaniego showed that Yucumane last erupted 3,000 years ago, implying that the reported eruptions, in particular those of 1787-1789 and 1802, most likely occurred at Tutupaca.

The sector collapse of eastern Tutupaca was accompanied by an eruption that was among the largest in Peruvian history, reaching a volcanic explosivity index of 3 or 4. Contemporaneous chronicles document ashfall as far as 165 kilometres (103 mi) south in Arica. The collapse has been dated to 1731-1802 with high probability,[note:The uncalibrated radiocarbon age of the samples is 218±14 years before present, with 95% confidence; the calibrated age consists of two ranges, with an 85% probability that the date lies between 1731 and 1802.] and is thought to be associated with the 1802 eruption. Shortly before the collapse[e], a pyroclastic flow was erupted from the volcano, probably as a consequence of the collapse of a lava dome, and formed a deposit on the east flank of Tutupaca, which reaches thicknesses of 6 metres (20 ft). The previous eruption may have destabilized the volcano and thus triggered the main collapse, which also generated the Paipatja pyroclastic flow. The area was thinly inhabited at the time and thus the impact of the eruption was small.

Today fumaroles occur on the summit of Tutupaca.

-- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:54, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

That seems fine if we are OK with the dangling sentence about fumaroles and with the "implication" that the eruptions took place at Tutupaca rather than Yucamane. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:17, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

The fumaroles sentence can be added to the end of the previous paragraph; I agree one-sentence paragraphs are undesirable, and I was in two minds about keeping it separate. Is there a less definite phrasing we could use for the other point that you think would fit the sources better? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 09:26, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

I see the issue with fumaroles here. If we write strictly chronologically, fumaroles have to come last, but so we end up with a dangling sentence. I think that a slight break from chronology can be tolerated here. As for the implication, I'd write Some authors believed that Yucamane volcano was a more likely source for these eruptions, but Samaniego et al. (2015) showed that Yucumane last erupted 3,000 years ago, and the other eruptions, in particular those of 1787-1789 and 1802, most likely occurred at Tutupaca. with "and the other eruptions, in particular those of 1787-1789 and 1802, most likely occurred at Tutupaca." sourced to the GVP article on Tutupaca. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:40, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

OK, I think we have an agreed version. Can you make the change? I'm likely to make a mistake with the citations as I don't know them as well as you do. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:05, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

Got it. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 12:53, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

I copyedited the lead; does that look OK? Can you add any more details from the body? I think this is about ready to nominate. I'd like to read it through one more time, probably tomorrow, to see if I can spot anything else, but it's more or less there. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:36, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Seems good to me. I've added some details; I did ask Ceranthor for comments as well since they have written volcanology FAs before. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:59, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Two more points.

• I think we can cut the first external link since it's already linked as a source. It looks like the others are not; is there any information in any of them that could be used to expand the article at all?
• The lead should be no more than two paragraphs, per WP:LEADLENGTH. Personally I think it's a bit silly to define lead lengths in terms of paragraphs rather than words, but since that's the current guideline we should stick with it.

Other than that I think this is ready to go once you hear from Ceranthor. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:02, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Regarding lead length, I am quite willing to argue that a thematical split is warranted here. The first two paras can be easily merged if needed. As for the first EL, it can go. The others are webpages which are useful extra information but for which I am not 100% sure that they are good sources. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 14:21, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

OK by me. I cut the EL, so I'd say fire when ready. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 17:02, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Comments from Ceranthor

• "It is part of the Peruvian segment of the Central Volcanic Zone, one of several volcanic belts in the Andes." - I'd link Andes
• I'd move these two sentences: "Several volcanoes in Peru have been active in recent times, including Tutupaca. Their volcanism is caused by the subduction of the Nazca Plate beneath the South America Plate." - to the beginning of the lead's third paragraph.
• "generating a large debris avalanche with a volume probably over 0.6–0.8 cubic kilometres (0.14–0.19 cu mi)," - I think "more than" is better than "over" nearly always, but especially here
• "The volcano became active of the volcano" - not sure what was intended here, but this can't be right
• "with activity continuing into the Holocene," - I wouldn't repeat "activity" so close to "Active"
• "but the occurrence of historical eruptions was initially unclear with some eruptions instead attributed to the less eroded Yucamane volcano." - this needs to be reworded; the concept is clear but the text is jumbled. I had to re-read it twice to understand what you meant
• "Because there may be future eruptions, the Peruvian government plans to monitor the volcano for future activity." - I don't think the first half of the sentence is necessary, since it's implied by the second half. It might be more useful to replace that with some info about potential hazards instead
• "an older complex that is highly eroded, and two northerly peaks which are more recent" - "formed more recently" sounds better and is more clear, assuming that's what you intended to say
• "these heights are from a 2015 source.[9][2]" - I don't think this should be included in the text itself. A footnote would be better. Also, make sure that the sources occur in order, so it's [2][9] not [9][2]
• "which is the origin of a 6–8 kilometres (3.7–5.0 mi) long" - think this should be "kilometre", not "kilometres"
• "The deposit is mostly confined within glacial valleys" - I think "confined" could be replaced by another verb
• " 100–200 metres (330–660 ft) long hummock-like hills" - same note as two above
• "The ridges range from only a few meters to over 0.5 metres (1 ft 8 in) in height," - more than, not over
• "they can produce large avalanches of debris and are major dangers from volcanoes" - Not sure what the last part of the sentence adds to "large avalanches of debris"
• "including the Central Volcanic Zone, where Tutupaca is located." - no comma after CVZ
• "Peruvian volcanoes with major historical eruptions include El Misti, 2,000 years ago and Huaynaputina, in 1600.[24]" - grammatically this sentence needs to be tweaked
• "others control the positions of geothermal features.[13]" - how do they "control" them? clarify if the source allows you to, otherwise I think control is an odd verb to use
• "supported by radiocarbon dates showing there were eruptions during this period" - radiocarbon dates? This seems like the wrong noun... maybe dating?
• "but Samaniego 2015 showed that Yucumane last erupted 3,000 years ago" - Samaniego 2015 should be expanded to "a team of researchers led by ... Samaniego" showed in 2015 that
• "implying that the reported eruptions, the 1802 and 1787 most likely occurred at Tutupaca.[1]" - "the 1802 and 1787"?
• " as far as 165 kilometres (103 mi) south in Arica.[32] " - should be "to the south"
• "Based on the history of Tutupaca an eruption scenario can be envisaged where renewed activity causes another collapse of the volcano" - "an eruption scenario can be envisaged" seems a bit wordy, "a future eruption" works just fine
• "In this case, about 8,000 – 10,000 people as well as neighbouring geothermal power and mining infrastructure would be endangered" - kind of odd to use "endangered" this way; I'd just say "at risk" or "in danger" after would be
• "but the volcano was not monitored itself since it is not active" - maybe better as "but they did not monitor the volcano itself since..."
• "In 2017, Tutupaca was identified as one of the volcanoes to be monitored by the future Peruvian Southern Volcano Observatory." - Another few sentences on this would be useful!
• I'd remove the overcapitalization for the external link and for CIENCIA & DESARROLLO.

Sorry for my delay, real life's been a bitch lately! ceranthor 02:38, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments Ceranthor. I've enacted most of these suggestions; the "kilometres" thing is done by the {{convert}} template. The Samaniego 2015 thing is dicey since the source does not explicitly state which role each team member had. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:57, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

The convert thing can be fixed by adding |adj=on. As for the Samniego 2015 thing, that's fine. Otherwise, I think this is ready for FAC. ceranthor 14:51, 27 March 2018 (UTC)