Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/El Tatio/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 9 October 2021 [1].

El Tatio

[edit]
Nominator(s): Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 14:39, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the highest geothermal area in the world, and the largest of the Southern Hemisphere with over 100 geothermal manifestations such as geysers. It is today mainly a tourism destination, and also a research object for scientists analyzing microbial life in extreme habitats comparable to Mars. In the past it was also prospected for geothermal power generation but a major incident in 2009, which had major implications both for regional geothermal power politics and natives-government relations, has probably terminated this prospecting. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 14:39, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

[edit]

Comments from Chidgk1

[edit]

Additionally, if you found these comments useful, please add a comment or 2 hereChidgk1 (talk) 15:11, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Aye, they were useful. I'll see about that FAC. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:59, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator note

[edit]

While this has passed the important image review the nomination has been open for over three weeks and is showing little sign of gaining a consensus to support. Unless there is a significant change in this over the next two or three days, I am afraid that it is liable to be archived. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:28, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Put some notices on the FAC talk page and my own, as well as on the two wikiprojects. I am wondering if Wikipedia:WikiProject Energy may also be interested. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:27, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Gog the Mild: The internet for my PC has been out for two days and I was busy prior to that so I haven't been able to take a good look at this article. I will try to review it in a bit. Volcanoguy 15:25, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Volcanoguy

[edit]

Geomorphology and geography

  • "The field is located 89 kilometres (55 mi)-80 kilometres (50 mi) north". Should probably use 80–89 kilometres (50–55 mi).
    Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:19, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "From north to south the andesitic stratovolcanoes include the 5,651-metre 18,540 ft)[20][7][21] or 5,696 metres (18,688 ft) high". 5,696 metres should be 5,696-metre. Also citation error.
    I think I got it, but I don't see a citation error? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:19, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and the 5,314-metre (17,434 ft) high Volcan Tatio, and they collectively form the El Tatio volcanic group.[20][7][21][b]" should be "and the 5,314-metre (17,434 ft) high Volcan Tatio, which collectively form the El Tatio volcanic group." Also citation error.
    Done, but I don't see the citation error? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:19, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Geothermal field

  • "and their geysers are taller than these at El Tatio". Replace these with those.
    Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:19, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and is characterized by fumaroles, hot springs, steam vents known as soffioni and steaming soil" would read better as "and is characterized by fumaroles, hot springs, steam vents and steaming soil" with "steam vents" piped to the soffioni article.
    Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:19, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Stronger geothermal activity is located within three discrete areas covering a total of 10 square kilometres (3.9 sq mi) surface, and includes boiling water fountains, hot springs, geysers, mudpots, mud volcanoes and sinter terraces;[47][13]" Citation error.
  • "The activity of geysers is not stable over time, changes in water supply or in the properties of the conduit that supplies them can cause changes in their eruptive activity." A semicolon would probably be better than a comma.
    Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:19, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Geology

  • "The region was dominated by andesitic volcanism producing lava flows until the late Miocene, then large scale ignimbrite activity took place between 10 and 1 million years ago." Large-scale.
  • "The APVC is underpinned by a large magma chamber with the shape of a sill, the Altiplano-Puna Magma Body; a number of volcanoes and geothermal system including El Tatio are geographically associated with the Altiplano-Puna Magma Body." Geothermal systems.
  • "The terrain at El Tatio is formed by Jurassic–Cretaceous sediments of marine and volcanic origin, Tertiary–Holocene volcanic formations that were emplaced in various episodes, and recent sediments formed by glaciers, alluvium, colluvium and material formed by the geothermal field, such as sinter.[78][21]" Citation error.
  • "Hydrothermal alteration of country rock has occurred at El Tatio, it has yielded large deposits of alteration minerals such as illite, nobleite, smectite, teruggite and ulexite." would probably read better as "Hydrothermal alteration of country rock at El Tatio has yielded large deposits of alteration minerals such as illite, nobleite, smectite, teruggite and ulexite."
    Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:19, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The summit parts of several volcanoes of the El Tatio volcanic group have been bleached and discoloured by hydrothermal activity." I would reword this to "The summits of several volcanoes comprising the El Tatio volcanic group have been bleached and discoloured by hydrothermal activity."
    Hmm, I think that that reads a little odd - a summit is an one-dimensional point not a three-dimensional structure. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:19, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    What do you mean by "summit parts"? I understood that as parts of a summit. Volcanoguy 05:20, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, exactly that. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:55, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hydrology

  • "The source of heat of the whole complex appears to be the Laguna Colorada caldera,[84][21][85] the El Tatio volcanic group,[41][47] the Cerro Guacha and Pastos Grandes calderas[86][15] or the Altiplano-Puna Magma Body.[87]" Citation errors.
  • "The water travels through a number of aquifers that correspond to permeable rock formations, such as the Salado and Puripicar ignimbrites,[92][90] as well as through faults and fractures in the rock." Citation error.
  • "Arsenic concentrations in waters at El Tatio can reach 40 milligrams per litre (2.3×10−5 oz/cu in)[99]-50 milligrams per litre (2.9×10−5 oz/cu in)". I would use 40–50 milligrams per litre (2.3×10−5–2.9×10−5 oz/cu in).
    Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:19, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Fumaroles

  • "Carbon dioxide is the most important fumarole gas, followed by hydrogen sulfide.[107][85][53]" Citation errors.

Composition of spring deposits

Microorganisms

  • "Biofilms and microbial mats are omnipresent at El Tatio,[133] including Calothrix,[70][65] Leptolyngbya,[134] Lyngbya and Phormidium[e] cyanobacteria, which form mats within the hot springs covering the solid surfaces, including oncoids and the sinter.[70][65]" Citation errors.

Geological history

  • "The intersection between northwest-southeast trending and northnorthwest-southsoutheast-trending lineaments at El Tatio has been correlated with the occurrence of geothermal activity." Northwest–southwest trending, north-northwest–south-southeast trending.
    Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:19, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The first was the 10.5–9.3 million years old[f] Rio Salado ignimbrite". Grammar.
  • "It was followed by the 8.3 million years old voluminous Sifon ignimbrite". Grammar.
    I think I got both? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:19, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "This strong ignimbrite volcanism is associated with activity of the Altiplano–Puna volcanic complex, which has produced dacite dominated large volume ignimbrites and sizable calderas, starting from the middle Miocene." I would reword this to "This strong ignimbrite volcanism is associated with activity of the Altiplano–Puna volcanic complex, which has produced large volume dacite ignimbrites and sizable calderas, starting from the middle Miocene."
    Yeah, that's better; it's in. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:19, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Petrological data suggest that over time the erupted lavas of the El Tatio volcanic group have become more mafic, with older products being andesitic and later ones basaltic-andesitic." Is this implying the later lavas are both basaltic and andesitic or is it referring to basaltic andesite?
    Both basaltic and andesitic, not basaltic andesite. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:19, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "There is no recorded historical volcanism in the El Tatio area[47] and volcanism has not directly affected it since about 27,000 years." I'm thinking "for about 27,000 years" might be better wording.
    Yes, that's in. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:19, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Research published in 2020 suggests that the geothermal activity commenced in the southern part of the field about 27,000 - 20,000 years ago and spread northwards, reaching the western part of the field last less than 4,900 years ago." Is "last" an extra word? Seems out of place.
    It wasn't an extra word, but it doesn't add anything so it's gone. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:19, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Human exploitation

  • "Feasibility studies in northern Chile identified El Tatio as a potential site for geothermal power generation, with large scale prospecting taking place in the 1960s and 1970s." Large-scale.
    Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:19, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In 1973 and 1974, wells were drilled and it was estimated that if the geothermal resources were fully exploited, about 100–400 megawatts electric power could be produced." 100–400 megawatts of electric power.
    Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:19, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Controversy

All this from my first pass. Volcanoguy 00:52, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Volcanoguy:Done so far but I don't see what the "citation error"s are about? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:19, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I always thought citations had to be in order. Volcanoguy 16:18, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Volcanoguy:Hmm, yeah. I think I got them. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:14, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This article has my support. Volcanoguy 16:15, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

[edit]

Spotchecks not done. Version reviewed

Nikkimaria (talk) 12:15, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Kusma

[edit]

Will continue later. Interesting article, but not so easy to read. —Kusma (talk) 14:27, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Overall, the article is thoroughly researched, especially the science parts, which are great if a bit technical. I think the tourism/administration/protection part looks short compared to the rest of the article, given that it seems to be a major tourist attraction. I'd love to have some more maps/schematics/illustrations to aid my understanding. If Zeil 1959 is really CC-BY as claimed, it might be possible to use/adapt the maps? (At least mention that there are useful maps in that reference?) I'd probably use more commas and/or try to use shorter sentences overall, but I'll leave discussing that to the native speakers. —Kusma (talk) 22:02, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm fairly close to supporting now (especially if the Zeil map drawing goes in that is more clear about where the geysers are than the larger map), there's just a few layout/style issues: the bulleted list really doesn't fit in well with the rest, the images could be more evenly distributed in the article (and the two galleries behave differently on resizing, especially noticeable on wide screens). I'd prefer the APVC abbreviation to be introduced in the body instead of the lead, but that's minor and I won't insist on that. I'd still like more about tourism but I see your point about high quality sources. Thank you for switching to uniform {{sfn}}: it looks much cleaner now. —Kusma (talk) 16:37, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Another choice for the maps would be to export a piece of the OpenStreetMap display. I didn't manage to get <mapframe> to produce a similarly nice interactive map (test at my sandbox has only roads and rivers), but perhaps there are some experts for Wikipedia:Maplink who know what to do. —Kusma (talk) 16:47, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It's just my opinion, but that OSM map is a little too bare bones for my liking. As I've noted below regarding Doctor Who, I think the bulleted list is better than some other presentations that could be done. I've tried something about the galleries, I think that moving the images around may even their distribution but would reduce their pertinence to the sections. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 18:31, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
OpenStreetMap seems much better for human geography questions than for physical geography, I agree (and you already have the mapframe map at a different zoom level). The Zeil map doesn't look nearly as empty as the OSM one (mostly thanks to the contour lines). Either would be very useful in addition to the 1910 topographical map because they show the location and extent of the geyser field.
The bulleted list is kind of lacking a title telling us what is being listed, or an intro sentence ending in a colon. Without those, it just looks like you're suddenly changing from unbulleted paragraphs to bulleted paragraphs. (Compare examples at MOS:LIST).
The larger images look much better for the second gallery, thanks. I think we disagree on our image placement preferences, but that's fine. You could consider linking vicuña and yareta in the captions. —Kusma (talk) 20:07, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Added the Zeil map. Added an intro for the list. Also linked the terms. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:23, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Brill. Supporting. —Kusma (talk) 08:32, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support from wtfiv

[edit]

Knowing next to nothing about the topic, I found this article to be well-written with the links quite informative in explaining the geology. Most of my comments are minor.

Also, I'd like to note that I very much appreciate that there appeared to be an effort in this article to use a good number of accessible articles that didn't require a paywall to verify. (Though I didn't spot-check references, I clicked to a number to get more information about a point.)

  • It then leaves the article with a dangling, undefined term. Anything to help a less technical reader would be good.
  • Text around FN38 mentions Western Cordilla. This confused me, as Wikipedia articles point toward the North American Western Cordilla. Citation at FN38 mentions Eastern Cordilla drainage, but not Western.
    I think a better term would be Cordillera Occidental but would that be less clear? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 19:10, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Western Cordilla is unclear, so anything to disambiguate the term would be useful. At least the use of Spanish differentiates it from Western Cordilla in North America. And again, the reference mentions the Eastern drainage. Can these elements be brought into line?
  • Does sinster terrace need to be redlinked? Sinster is defined via a link, and a reader who looks up sinster the first time should be able to understand that a terrace is a terrace of sinster. If there are interesting and unusual aspects to sinster terraces that are notable and need to be explored, then maybe an article is needed?
    I think one could write an interesting topic about sinter terraces, so yes. But I don't think I have the stamina to do so at the moment. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 19:10, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I think it is an unnecessary redlink. My own feeling is that featured articles minimize redlinks to a handful of necessary terms , and when a term is missing defines it in context. (Seeing a highway redlinked was also odd, but maybe its worthy of a historical review?) but I'm just trying help out here and I can see there is already a lot work in the article.
    I don't think we treat redlinks differently in FAs than in regular articles? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:23, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    No need to change anything with these. I just think too many redlinks just don't look good and leave the article with undefined terms. But it is clearly a matter of preference, so this is set.
  • First two sentences beginning Geothermal field are a bit odd. Would it help to break sentences thematically? Sentence 1) Well known thermal field? 2) Largest and highest (mention in altitude). The comparison with Yellowstone and Dolina Geizerov might be stronger reworded. "taller" initially seems synonymous with the previous sentences "higher", but higher is altitude, and "taller" could be incorporated into a dependent clause, as the "height" of geysers was not a topic in the previous two sentences. It's just a bit of additional information on Yellowstone and Dolina Geizerov.
    I've done a rewrite but I'm afraid that I am not sure how to rewrite it further. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 19:10, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Edited the section and then reverted. Take a look, to see what I'm saying. The comparison of size betwee El Tatio, Yellostone and Dolina Geizerov, should adjacent. Height of geyser is not a directly relevant comparison, so subordinated, the world "altitude" added to remove confusion of high and tall. No need to keep edits, just illustrating the point and hopefully making clear the issue. Wtfiv (talk) 23:59, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, your rewrite is better than the current. I've put it in. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:23, 29 September 2021 (UTC)"[reply]
    Great! My main point for adding it was just to illustrate the issue I saw (very minor.) It's nice the edit will work.
  • There's a great many duplicate links that could be reduced: (e.g., fumoroles, glaciers, Lake Tauca, Altiplano-Puna Magma body, to just name a few.) (In pruning my own, I found this script you may want to consider using, which helps immensely: User:Evad37/duplinks-alt)
    I'll take them. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 19:10, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

*::Does that mean that they're not going to be addressed or they will be addressed? My thought is that they should be cleaned up, as that's part of the featured article process. Looks like they are addressed.

  • In Geology: "recent" is linked to Holocene. Is there a non-awkward way to say "during the Holocene" rather than linking Holocene to recent? Again, I'll go either way, as I'm trying to just help shepherd the article to closure.
    Tried something. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 19:10, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks. I think the attempt to more precisely define what was intended by "recent" without relying on the link to do the work is helpful to the casual reader.
    "Recent" here is "last 11,700 years", would that need a source if we stated it in text? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:23, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • In Geology, the abbreviation APVC occurs without warning or definition. I saw in FN74 that it most likely stands for Altiplano-Puna Volcanic Complex, but this is not defined and the abbreviation is not forwarned (e.g., following full-name with abbreviation in parenthesis.) And Altiplano-Puna Volcanic Complex can be linked as well.
    Er, it is defined in the lead. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 19:10, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Now I see it. That's what I get for reading the article without the lead. Easy to miss as it pops up much later in the article, but it was defined early.
  • In human exploitation, would it be worthwhile to slightly expand on the incident that caused the geothermic project to stall (i.e., uncontrolled well discharge)? (Following up, I think this does need to be mentioned in more detail in the article- maybe just a sentence or an expansion with a dependent clause- as you mention it in the introduction of the Featured Article Review as part of the article's notability.)
    See, my thinking is that currently it is adequately covered in the article. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 19:10, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, I see it. Following in the next section. The section break conceptually separated them for me, a more casual reader. So I didn't connect the "incident" with the following description of the other incident I'm sure a more technical reader wouldn't make that error, and reference to 2009 links them too, though it could still be mistaken for two different incidents.
    Thinking about this further, I think this would be just a bit clearer if the sentence It progressed until 2009, when an incident at the site along with environmental issues caused it to stall again. was slightly rewritten and integrated as the first sentence of the next subheading. The incident and its effect is, after all, the topic for this section. It's minor, but I think, helpful to the casual reader. Wtfiv (talk) 00:42, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I've been wondering about the structure here myself. The sequence is first research->trial drillings->2009 accident->resulting controversy. The sentence you quote was meant to be a lead-over to the focus change. Perhaps cutting that sentence would be better? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:23, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I think cutting it may work, as the subheading functions as its own lead over. Again, its very minor, but if it snagged me, I'm sure a handful of others would be snagged for it. But if the subheading jumps right into the incident and its subsequent stalling of the geothermal incident, that strikes me as a bit cleaner.
    I've cut it. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:41, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The biggest issue I see is the citations. The article remains a hybrid of ⟨ref⟩ and sfn. I wouldn't make support for this article conditional on this consistency, as it is a lot of work to fix. But isn't such consistency in citation style on of the hallmarks of a featured article? Does it seem like an issue from your perspective? Wtfiv (talk) 17:18, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I perhaps started off from a wrong premise, but back in the day I thought that this combination of sfn+ref was acceptable. Some of my more recent ones such as Lake Estancia are now standardized on only one, however. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 19:10, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    With respect to citation formatting, as I was under a different impression. During the citation spot check and image check, it seemed the FAR regulars did not address this issue, so it most likely it doesn't matter. But if we could, I'd like to get perhaps a word from one of people who monitor the FAR. Again, it's not something that stands or falls for me- I'm just trying to help out and beyond eventually give this article some support, as the responses make clear, there is really little of use I've had to offer except in terms of the misunderstandings a more casual reader may make. But perhaps this review can be useful for personal clarification: I thought a consistent citation style property of featured articles I thought was important- and one of the distinguishing characteristics of a GA from an FA. If not, that's good information to know. @Gog the Mild:, I know you've been helping the articles here move forward toward successfully completing the FAR process, are there any trends or guidelines one way or the other on this? (As mentioned, I'm not going to lay any support conditions on this article based on your- or any FA regulars- input, I just want to know the general guidelines.) Wtfiv (talk) 19:50, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I've been thinking further on this. I think WP:CITE and WP:CITEVAR are clear that a consistent reference system should be in an article. Definitely, this is not as enforced in GAs (thank goodness), but I think FAs should aim reflect these values. My purpose for jumping into this particular review was mainly to answer the call for reviewers to support the hard work done on this article and help it get to FA, but I think this consistency is an important aspect of an FA article. For me to effectively support the it and to help the article with a bit more FA polish, it needs the consistency. Since my original goal was to help, I can offer this: If it does not disrupt the committed editors to the article, I'll gladly collaborate with others with the editing required out getting the remaining ref items in this article into sfn format. If you rather leave the article as is, I more than understand. It's a lot of work. Wtfiv (talk) 08:18, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, the main problem I see with changing the citation format from ref to sfn is that it'd be a lot of work. If someone wants to do it anyway, they can I think. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:44, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Wtfiv and Jo-Jo Eumerus:, FAC criteria 2c requires "consistent citations: where required by criterion 1c, consistently formatted inline citations using footnotes". Gog the Mild (talk) 11:04, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Incidentally, not really important but I didn't make any effort at avoiding paywalls. It must have arisen by chance. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 19:10, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's a good serendipity, as it allows the casual reader some opportunity to not take all the citations on faith alone. I certainly appreciated it when I could actually look at the citations to verify and understand.

Support from Femke

[edit]

I'm leaning support, a few comments. Happy to see only few midsentence cites, and illustrations are beautiful. I'm editing from phone, so made prose suggestions directly. More to come. FemkeMilene (talk) 11:19, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from TheDoctorWho

[edit]
  • I'm a little concerned about the bullet list, I see it was mentioned above; however, MOS:BULLETLIST states that "Bullets are used to discern, at a glance, the individual items in a list, usually when each item in the list is a simple word, phrase or single line of text, [...]. They are not appropriate for large paragraphs." which is what it is being used for here. As that guideline states there are always exceptions but I'm not sure that this necessarily is one.
    I think that as a sequence it is more readable in list form than in separate paragraphs, which give no clear indication of a logical sequence. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:17, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I missed MOS:EMBED so this should actually be alright.TheDoctorWho (talk) 18:16, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not as concerned with this one but have you considered adding something like {{Infobox spring}} or {{Infobox landform}} to the article?
    Eh, I think that for such a complex topic infoboxes would be unduly reductive. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:17, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Chile Route B-245 has been a red link for over two years now. I'm not knowledgeable enough on Chile Route's to know if this particular route is "notable and verifiable" but if its not it should [probably] be removed.
  • Scrolling through the rest of the article there's actually quite a few red links so same goes for any of those, unless their particularly notable or they're going to be created soon they should all be removed.
    See, I am pretty sure that all of these redlinks can have articles created for them. I don't think we remove redlinks just because the article doesn't exist yet. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:17, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:REDLINK specifically says that unless the subjects article is likely to be created soon OR unless its notable and verifiable to remove them. This isn't particularly a deal breaker for me, I'm just wanting your opinion on whether or not they meet those requirements. TheDoctorWho (talk) 16:40, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I think they all meet the "notable and verifiable", myself. Granted, being busy with other projects I don't intend to do a lot of work with these redlinks, but still. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:42, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    In that case they're fine, just to clear up my comments you're not obligated to work on any of the red links if you don't want to, I was just trying to make sure the article followed appropriate guidelines, which according to you, they do. TheDoctorWho (talk) 18:16, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Don't really have much to say other than this, with the comments above most people have addressed everything else. Thanks, TheDoctorWho (talk) 15:21, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Given that the above was addressed this article has my support. TheDoctorWho (talk) 18:16, 30 September 2021 (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/El_Tatio/archive1&oldid=1049122412"