I'm nominating this article for featured article because it has still improved from the last FAC, and now fully meets the FA criteria. Along with Ruslik, I've cut down the article to a considerably lower portion devoted to the 1985 eruption. Also, we've added a brief flora and fauna section. If there are any prose problems remaining, I'm willing to fix any of Tony's or anyone else's concerns. Ceran→→ 02:41, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
Also, I'm a competitor in the WikiCup. Ceranthor 23:47, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
Image review: all images check out fine. Jappalang (talk) 04:54, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
I didn't participate in any of the previous reviews, so I've got a few questions and comments before I support:
Why is Bogota not considered to be threatened? Is it just because of the distance? The final sentence of the lede is a bit unclear. Perhaps instead of mentioning a city not in danger, talk about a city that is in danger. Later on, you mention a city of 300,000 people that is threatened.
See the previous FAC. Since there was a bit of a skirmish over inclusion of this concept, I'm going to AGF keep this.
"At the side of the summit" is a bit imprecise ... which side?
Well, it should be "all" sides, then, shouldn't it?
I guess I'll change it to two sides, since the source states "both".
In regards to "The summit of the volcano has steep slopes", is it all steep slopes, or does it just have them? It could be argued that pretty much any mountain -- volcano or not -- will have steep slopes somewhere on it.
Guess it just has them. Definitely not just steep slopes, if you read on a bit.
You talk about shallower slopes away from the summit, but just steep slopes at the summit, which is why I asked.
When talking about the flora and fauna, you say that surrounding mountains have X. Are these mountains are of similar sizes/elevations? If so, you might consider mentioning that, as it strengthens the case that these likely would be found on the volcano.
When calling the fauna "endemic", that's referring to the definition that they're only found in Colombia, correct? That's opposed to the definition of being "common".
Wait, so what do I replace?
Sorry, let me simplify. When you say "endemic", do you mean that they exist only in Colombia or that they are common in Colombia?
Well, those birds specifically are endemic.
How does Lake Otún factor in? You mention it as a trout fishing destination, but is it on the volcano or something? You don't state that explicitly.
No, it's nearby in the park. Clarified.
One thing that I've noticed is your use of "2 to 1 million"-type phrasing. While OK, it's not as precise as stating ranges as "2 million to 1 million". That's something Associated Press style encourages, and I'd encourage its use here in an effort to avoid potential confusion among readers.
Hmm, I think that's Ruslik's writing. Done by you.
I'm confused by the "once again" in the final sentence of the first paragraph in the eruption history. Is that referring to the ancient era?
Well, yes; it's referring to the ancestral era. Think this is fine, though. What's your opinion?
The article uses a lot of past perfect verbage; things like "was constructed" and "were formed". Those usually aren't necessary, and I've changed most of them.
There's a bit of last/past confusion. Using "last" in the "last 11,000 years" connotes something like the "final 11,000 years". I'd suggest using "past 11,000 years" instead, and I've made changes to that effect.
Also done by you.
When stating approximate dates, there's usually no need for the "in" in "in about 6600 BC". (Like the three "in"s? :)
Yup. :) Done by you! Yay...
There probably should be a sentence explaining the "perhaps" in the eruption history. Readers (myself included) are going to see that and ask, "How the hell can you be unsure about a volcano erupting?"
Where is that? I think you got to it.
Nope, didn't change it. It's in the third paragraph of the Eruptive History section. I read the source, but I'd strongly suggest stating why they're uncertain about those eruptions.
Added a note to explain (check it out).
When talking about the eruptions, did the vent/side/steam eruptions happen in succession or all at once?
Not specified. Can't do that without OR or assuming.
"Currently" usually is redundant.
Might be gone, where is this?
I think I got all of them.
Could you define "volcanic edifice" somewhere toward the start of the article? You use it throughout, and I don't understand what that includes.
Same as right above.
You clarified it by adding "cone".
"About 2,300 people were evacuated" ... "when erupted in 1989" Evacuated from where?
The final sentence of Current Threats, while tragic, isn't strictly necessary to understand the volcano. It speaks more about that individual tragedy than the volcano itself.
Also part of prior discussion so AGF keeping...
I guess that's about it. I didn't take a very close look at the 1985 eruption sections, but I might have the time to do that later. Good luck getting this passed, and don't hesitate to drop me a line. JKBrooks85 (talk) 00:53, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
Replied to all comments. Pinging user. Ceranthor 01:28, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
Comments on Armero tragedy subsection:
The sentence "The thermodynamic equilibration temperatures corresponding to the chemical composition of the discharged gases ..." is full of jargon. Is there a way to simplify it? I really can't make heads or tails of it.
The "Sleeping Lion" comment here has less detail than it does in the lede. It also doesn't flow well with the sentences around it.
I've now gone through the entire article, and have responded to some of your questions about the initial comments. Good luck! JKBrooks85 (talk) 11:29, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
Comments - I noticed that there were jargon issues before the restart. Jargon is my weak spot as a reviewer, so that's troublesome for me. However, if somebody leaves a review request on my talk page, I owe them a look. Here are some picky things to work on:
"was constructed between 150 thousand and 50 thousand years ago." Any reason why full numbers aren't given here? Or why the larger number is first?
Personal style, this is used throughout the article. Should I change it throughout, too?
Not if it is consistent, though I am curious why the numbers aren't spelled out in that case. Giants2008 (17-14) 05:11, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
Comma after "November 11, 1985".
"Up to 500,000 people might be at risk of another lahar." I'm confused by this. Wouldn't the people be at risk from a lahar?
Geography and geology: In the third paragraph, I can see where the jargon issues are coming from. Can a link at least be given for strata?
I see a lot of "which" used throughout; some would say it's overused. Can a few of these be changed to avoid what can be an awkward connector?
That may be the hardest thing I've faced so far. Um, I'll make an effort sometime this week...
(ec) I have a few concerns about prose before I support: resolved SupportPattont/c 19:59, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
The present edifice (cone) of Nevado del Ruiz was constructed between 150 thousand and 50 thousand years ago—(Lede, first paragraph) I think "formed" would be a better word here.
Nevado del Ruiz usually has Plinian eruptions that produce pyroclastic flows—(Lede, second paragraph) Change to "Nevado del Ruiz usually produces Plinian eruptions"
Done. Changed to "generates".
These eruptions often cause massive lahars (mudflows), which pose a threat to human life and wildlife. – (Lede, second paragraph) Change "human life" to "humans".
Up to 500,000 people might be at risk of another lahar.—(Lede, third paragraph) Rephrase so it reads "Up to 500,000 would be put at risk were another lahar to form" or something similar.
Since the 1985 eruption, the area occupied by glaciers has decreased by about half—(Glaciers, first paragraphed) Change to "has halfed".
During the ancestral period between 2 million and 1 million years ago, a complex of large stratovolcanoes was created.
—(Eruptive history, first paragraph) Replace " between 2 million and 1 million years ago" with "one to two million years ago".
In recorded history, eruptions consisted mainly of a central vent eruption (in the caldera) followed by an explosive eruption
—(Eruptive history, third paragraph) Change to "eruptions have consisted primarily of a central vent eruption"
I think the "Flora and fauna" and "Los Nevados National Park" should be subsections of "Geography and geology", though feel free to ignore me on that. A brilliant article and I will support once these concerns have addressed.--Pattont/c 22:57, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
comments resolved. Ceranthor 23:23, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
Support. My questions and comments have been resolved, and I feel this article presents a clear and concise history of the subject that adequately covers the topic. JKBrooks85 (talk) 00:10, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
Support Great article overall. I have only few questions concering the "Flora and fauna" section. I supported already but I hope you'll fix those.
It would be good to mention whether the dwarf forests and mesic forests are coniferous or deciduous.
My research hasn't turned up any info on this. Sorry!
An image if a plant and an animal would be great.
Have a nice day! :) -- LYKANTROP ✉ 22:53, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
Comment: Have notified relevant WikiProjects: 1, 2, 3, 4. Ceranthor 18:03, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
Comments It's good, but not quite there. There are some holes to fill and cracks to patch:
"... which pose a threat to human and wildlife." Since "wildlife" is one word, you can't hang "human" from it.
"The summit of Nevado del Ruiz is covered by large glaciers, although these have retreated significantly since 1985 due to global warming." I suspect this statement requires a citation in the lead (in addition to the body) since it is likely to be challenged.
"Bogotá, Colombia's capital, is not considered to be at risk from such lahars." I'm not sure why this is in the lead. Why would it be at risk? It is in range of the volcano? If so, why isn't it at risk? If it's not in range, this sentence is unneeded.
"... which contains 75 of the 204 Holocene volcanoes in South America." What are Holocene volcanoes?
I'm not a big fan of putting explanations for jargon in parens when you are already linking it. For example, terms like lahars, strata, and headwalls can just be linked without giving the explanation.
Isn't "melt water" supposed to be "meltwater"? And you might as well link it.
I'm unclear why we only know what the volcano "should" have in terms of flora. Is there a reason we don't know exactly? Please state it in the text.
The the Eruptive history section, where you describe the Present period, there is too much jargon that hasn't been previously explained and is not explained here (ex. "slope failures" - is that the same as a lahar? "pyroclastic density currents")
"... followed by an explosive eruption, then lahars and mudflows." I thought a lahar was a mudflow? Mudflows and mudflows?
"The eruption started between 8:00 a.m. and 10:00 a.m, and consisted of three Plinian eruptions ..." The wording is a bit odd: The eruption .. consisted of three eruptions
"The volcano also erupted lapilli (a form of tephra)" Well, providing an alternate word for lapilli that is also jargon doesn't help the reader.
"... a fractional 3% of the amount that erupted from Mount St. Helens in 1980." This is worded badly, as it's unclear what "fractional 3%" means. Do you mean a fraction of 3%?
A fractional amount, ie. a small amount.
"Nevertheless, a group of scientists informed residents that by staying there ..." Who? Surely not the Italian group, who you said made minor recommendations.
Not specified in source, so can't. Sorry.
I'd be interested in knowing how the Italian group reacted to the eruption and subsequent deaths. Where they held accountable for the deaths? Dishonored? Ridiculed?
Hmm, this candidate needs work and discussion, which is not what we usually find here. These are my comments for the lead section: Physchim62(talk) 18:25, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
"the volcano has been active for about two million years, since the early Pleistocene or late Pliocene epoch." Would be better as "the volcano has been active since the early Pleistocene or late Pliocene epoch, that is for about two million years."
"It is considered the second most active volcano in Colombia after Galeras." Shouldn't be in the lead, as not sufficiently significant. Is correctly discussed in the article text.
Pyroclastic flow should have some sort of gloss on it in the lead, as it is important to the notability of of the subject (in the general sense, not the WP:N sense).
Since I agree with Laser brain above, the link is sufficient.
Not a nomination killer, but I'll leave this one unstriken for a while to see if I can come up with a compromise solution. Physchim62(talk) 00:28, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
Now done. -- Avenue (talk) 16:30, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
"These eruptions often cause massive lahars (mudflows), which pose a threat to human and wildlife." As he/she is a WP:CUP participant, I invite the nominator to spot the grammatical error in this sentence.
"The summit of Nevado del Ruiz is covered by large glaciers, although these have retreated significantly since 1985 due to global warming." I hate to comment on this point, because personally I agree with the conclusion, but I think it puts the point across better to omit the phrase "because of global warming" and let people draw their own conclusions.
"Bogotá, Colombia's capital, is not considered to be at risk from such lahars." Irrelevent sentence for the lead. Why should anyone think that Bogotá was at risk, any more than Washington, D.C., might be at risk from Mount St. Helens?
Only the last reference in the first paragraph has any utility: to reference "the Andes, a mountain range running along the western coast of South America" is utterly ridiculous.
"(nevado means "snow covered")" should state "in Spanish".
again the phrase "due to global warming" appears: this time it is referenced but a quick check of the reference doesn't support the claim. The reference does talk about "atmospheric warming" in the introduction, but only there.
More seriously, the very same paper describes uncontroversial details about the formation of the current geographical structure which are not included in the article. Our article should be able to say that the current mountain which people can see was formed over the last 150,000 years, and not the two million years that the WP article implies.
Sorry, but I do not understand the last comment. The article contains an extensive description of the eruptive history. Ruslik (talk) 19:34, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, that was my mistake, the article does indeed contain the information I wanted with that comment. Physchim62(talk) 20:55, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
"Nevado del Ruiz, being of high elevation, is not heavily forested." might be better as "Nevado del Ruiz is not heavily forested because of its height (5,300 m, 17,400 ft)"
"Parts of the volcano are covered with dwarf forests 3–8 meters (9.8–26 ft) high." should be "dwarf forests with vegetation 3–8 meters high". Similarly in the next sentence.
"The episode started between 8:00 a.m. and 10:00 a.m" this phrase seems remarkably exact as to the timing! May be "in the morning" would be better.
There exists a good description by Fray Pedro Simon. Ruslik (talk) 09:31, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
Eruption and lahars
"The lake's hot, acidic water significantly accelerated melting of the ice, and contributed to the high amounts of sulfates and chlorides measured in the lahar flow." I'm a chemist, yet it took me three reads to understand this sentence! You should probably copyedit the whole paragraph here.
"One of the lahars virtually erased the small town of Armero, which lay in one of the river valleys. Only 5,000 of Armero's original population of 28,000 survived the disaster. The eruption is estimated to have killed more than 23,000 people, injured another 5,000 people, and destroyed more than 5,000 homes." Together, these two sentences imply that virtually no one was killed outside Armero, which seems unlikely.
I added information about deaths in Chinchina. However the precise number of deaths is not known as sources say something like "in between 20 and 23 thousand". Ruslik (talk) 09:31, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
"but scientists doubted his theory at the time." Scientists doubted his view at the time. Doubts about Chouet's theory are of a longer timescale.
The whole section needs copyediting for encyclopedic style.
I copy-edited it. Ruslik (talk) 09:31, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
I was surprised to find so many minor but basic faults at this late stage in a third nomination which has already been extended! I note with respect the credentials of both main editors in contributing high-quality material (in related subject areas) to the encyclopedia, and the fact that four relevant WikiProjects have been (belatedly) notified of this nomination. Still, the article history and the faults found make me wonder about the completeness of the article: the repeated nominations, the faults found at this stage and the lack of apparent contribution from other editors in the field smack of haste to achieve a featured article rather than commitment to produce a high quality article on this subject in particular. The article is certainly of high quality, but is it the best we could do on this subject? I'm not qualified to answer that, but my support for citing this as "Wikipedia's very best work" must be qualified by my doubts on the matter. Physchim62(talk) 00:58, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
Is the elevation correct? It does not match peakware, nor does it match the article's elevation from 5 years ago :-). —hike395 (talk) 03:35, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
Why are there no references for elevation (as a followup to Hike395's comment), prominence or coordinates? This is not about a volcano in the USA, why does this article use the American spelling rather than metres? There is only a very brief mention of climbing history. What are the main or other climbing routes? Why is it also known as Kumanday? Is this a local name and where did it come from? RedWolf (talk) 04:17, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
I added coordinates and references. The elevation is 5,321 m, but the article contained a typo (5231 instead of 5321). However other source says 5,389 or 5,300, and I do not know which is a right value. Ruslik (talk) 09:31, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
As to spelling. This article always used US spelling, so per MOS should continue to use it. Ruslik (talk) 09:36, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
Fixed references for prom., elevation, etc. Ceranthor 20:30, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
ALL of Psychim's comments have now been resolved. I don't think opinion from an expert is necessary because it certainly isn't for any other FAC article. It is extremely comprehensive and Ruslik and I have put in an insane work epic into this. I've been trying to improve Wiki's coverage of tectonics, not been trying to achieve an FA with this. FAs are nice, but really they are petty, meaningless things in RL when you think about it. So please don't be cynical like that. Ceranthor 20:30, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
I think Physchim62 is just saying that a subject matter expert's sign-off on the articles comprehensiveness would be a huge positive. I'm only speaking for myself, but I have no idea if you've covered all the bases or even used the best sources. As for being cynical, let's just say Physchim62 isn't exactly an FAC apologist. His feedback is in good faith, however. Some articles spend months between FAC nominations going through fact-checking, editing, review, and so on. --Laser brain(talk) 20:41, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
I don't mean my comments to be a nomination-breaker on this particular article. The faults I found make me suspect that there are other things missing, I've said it above and I'll say it again here. However, I cannot find them and in any case the article should be judged according to the current FAC criteria, not what I would like them to be, and on that basis I have no objection to it going forward. Physchim62(talk) 20:50, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
Oppose, mainly based on the quality of the prose and comprehensiveness, although I also have concerns about the structure and the accuracy of some parts.Support. The article has come a long way, and the prose has improved greatly with Awickert's input. -- Avenue (talk) 16:52, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
Abstain. On second thought, I'm probably too close to it now for my judgment to be seen as unbiased. -- Avenue (talk) 23:20, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
Structure: "Geography and geology" are separated from "Eruptive history" by two unrelated sections, but the eruptive history and current threats are really part of the geology.
If they are merged the article will effectively consist of just one section, which is not reasonable. Ruslik (talk) 07:03, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
I didn't mean to imply that merging is the only solution, or that every bit of the geological information must come together. It seems a bit disjointed at present though. -- Avenue (talk) 08:43, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
I actually do not know what to do. For me these sections are OK. Ruslik (talk) 09:33, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
I actually moved one sentence to Eruptive history section. Ruslik (talk) 12:04, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
That helped - now everything about current activity comes later. I still think some reorganisation could help, but this is not worth opposing over. -- Avenue (talk) 15:47, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
Comprehensiveness - glaciation: I'm sure I've read that the glacier cover has been decreasing since the Little Ice Age; I'll try to track down the details. There's no mention of this in our article, which doesn't even look back before the 1985 eruption. One USGS source we've already used can take us back to the mid 1800s, and the NAP book discusses the extent of the volcano's ice cap during the last ice age.
Unfortunately this source is not very specific, and says little about Nevado del Ruiz. All numbers are for Ruiz-Tolima massif. Ruslik (talk) 07:03, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
Table 4 gives figures for Ruiz from 1959 on. Figures for the ice age (p 183) are for the Ruiz-Tolima massif as a whole, but that's better than ignoring the previous history completely. Ruiz accounts for most of the massif's present ice cover, after all. -- Avenue (talk) 08:43, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
I added some information. Ruslik (talk) 09:33, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
Accuracy - eruptive history: Did the 1595 eruption really kill exactly 636 people? This looks suspiciously precise to me, for an eruption so long ago. The source cited is a brief mention in the sidebar to a BBC news story.
True, and that's a better source. But I'm still dubious about the implied accuracy. Look at how imprecise the 1985 figures are, for example. -- Avenue (talk) 08:43, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
Changed to "more than 600". Ruslik (talk) 09:33, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
Accuracy - geography/geology: Our text says that while La Olleta cone "may have erupted in the past several thousand years, it is not active" but the source cited says that (like the Arenas crater) it "may also have been active in historical time." This seems like a big difference to me.
Accuracy - lead section: We say that the summit glaciers have "retreated significantly since 1985 due to global warming." The "due to global warming" part is not repeated in the text below. Also I believe a significant proportion of the loss since early 1985 is due to the 1985 eruption.
It was present in the that section but was removed. I re-added a reference to the atmospheric warning. The 1985 eruption did not significantly disturb the glaciers. The ice loss from it was only about 10% (see Haggel, 2007). Ruslik (talk) 07:03, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
Much better. 10% is a noticeable portion of the 60% drop, but that's not worth opposing over, especially as "since 1985" is ambiguous about what it includes. -- Avenue (talk) 08:43, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
I added information about ice cover before 1985. Ruslik (talk) 07:29, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
Again, I think we need to go back much further to be comprehensive. -- Avenue (talk) 08:43, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
Accuracy - lead section: We conclude by saying: "If another lahar were to occur, up to 500,000 people might be at risk." A little hyperbole has crept in here, I think. While 500,000 people are estimated to be at risk from future lahars (plural!), they would not all be at risk from any one lahar, which is what the current text says.
Well, since it is not known where the next lahar will be, all these 500,000 people are at risk from any lahar. Ruslik (talk) 07:03, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
Only a portion will be affected by any particular lahar. I'll try to fix it. -- Avenue (talk) 08:43, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
Prose - lead section:
"The present edifice (cone) of Nevado del Ruiz ..." is ugly. If cone is close enough to the meaning of edifice here, just use that.
"On November 11, 1985, a small eruption produced an enormous lahar, which buried and desolated the town of Armero, causing an estimated 23,000 deaths in what became known as the Armero tragedy—the deadliest lahar in recorded history." Too many clauses. Break in two.
"consisting of many strata of hardened lava, tephra and volcanic ash" - volcanic ash is a form of tephra.
Yes, it is, but I think it is still better to mention volvanic ash (added "including"). Ruslik (talk) 07:03, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
I agree. Thanks. -- Avenue (talk) 08:43, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
"It comprises three structures..." - what are they? how do they relate to each other? I believe they were built successively on top of each other, but the text here is completely silent about this.
Actually three edifices (fixed). Ruslik (talk) 07:03, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
That helps a bit, but how the edifices relate to each other (and to the "modern volcanic cone" described in the next sentence) still seems quite unclear. Are the three edifices la Olleta, la Piraña and the main cone? -- Avenue (talk) 15:47, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
Rereading the source (GVP), I now see that the three edifices were built in succession. We deal with that later on. I've resolved the problem by rewording the offending paragraph so that it follows the source's meaning more closely. -- Avenue (talk) 16:12, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
The two sentences starting with "The volcano is part of the Ruiz–Tolima volcanic massif..." conclude the section, but give general contextual information that would fit better further up, probably before we talk about the structure of the volcano.
"In 1845, a massive lahar caused by a large earthquake on the volcano's summit flooded the upper valley of the Lagunillas River, killing more than a thousand people. The mudflow continued for 70 kilometers (43 mi) downstream before thinning out across a plain in the lower valley floor,..."
seems too close to this passage in the cited source:
"In 1845, an immense lahar flooded the upper valley of the River Lagunillas, killing over 1000 people. It continued for 70 kilometers downstream before spreading across a plain in the lower valley floor."
Only the second sentence was problematic (fixed). Ruslik (talk) 07:03, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
Similarly, the first sentence about the 1595 eruption seems very close to copying this source.
These exist only a limited number of ways how this can be said: On [date], a lahar [moved/flowed/...] down the valleys, and [kiled/caused death of] over 1,000 people. Ruslik (talk) 07:03, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
I actually fixed this issue. Ruslik (talk) 19:58, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
There are more prose problems, but that's all I have time to go through at present.
Although I don't think the article meets FA criteria yet, for the above reasons, I do think the article is much, much better than it used to be. -- Avenue (talk) 00:26, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
My remaining concerns are not worth opposing over. -- Avenue (talk) 15:47, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
I will definitely respond to these tomorrow. Ceranthor 00:58, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
This seems familiar, so I've gone half-way down.
"Eruptive history"—ambiguous? "The history of NdR's eruptions began ...", maybe.
"also includes"—remove "also".
and involved development of the present edifice of the volcano". Nope, the last eight words are a nominal group (big noun); the "head" is "development"; there's a post-modifer in all of the words after it. Therefore, you need "the" (specific). Same with "emplacement of ...". Please check through for more nominal groups that need "the" similarly. There's another in the very next sentence. But "eruptions of the volcanoes in the Ruiz-Tolima massif have been mostly small" overrides that, as the plural of "an eruption of ...".
"Ruiz–Tolima", the article, has an en dash. Guess that's right (implies movement or "to"ness). Elsewhere, there are hyphens. Otherwise, pipe the article down to a hyphen if you think the en dash is inappropriate in the first place.
The little parastub "However, taking ..." should be tacked onto the previous para.
"when the mudslide fell down the mountain and swept them away" ... remove five of these 11 words.
It's not perfect—these are just spot-checks. I'm not willing to oppose on the basis of the writing this time. If it's promoted, I urge the author(s) to polish it up. Tony(talk) 11:29, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the comments, they are very useful. Ruslik (talk) 12:04, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
I think there is no outstanding opposes left. Ruslik (talk) 10:19, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
Oppose from Maralia mainly due to prose issues.
The lead is confusing. The volcano has been active for 2 million years, and its cone formed during its last eruption period between 150 thousand and 50 thousand years ago. The next paragraph describes an eruption in 1985, and says it had been dormant for 150 years prior, and had eruptions in 1595 and 1845.
What would you like me to add to make it flow better? Ceranthor 23:19, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
I don't know how best to fix this—perhaps why I don't write about volcanoes :) The problems are:
the apparent disconnect between 'active for 2 million years' versus 'dormant for 140 years'; and
the apparent disconnect between its 'last eruption period' being 150,000-50,000 years ago but eruptions happening in 1595, 1845, and 1985. Maralia (talk) 04:45, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
"Active" does not mean that it erupted every year. Of course, there have been many periods of activity and inactivity in the last 2 million year. 150-50 meant that the major eruptions that actually built the edifice happened in that period, and the later eruptions were small. I changed the last sentence to say "in the last 150 thousand years". Ruslik (talk) 08:34, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
I've reworded it further, e.g. by adding "intermittently", to try to make this clearer. -- Avenue (talk) 17:55, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
And I've re-worded it further still - not as few words as Avenue used, but it has technically been active this whole time. Hopefully the clarity is still there. Awickert (talk) 18:05, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
"Ruiz is the northernmost of several Colombian volcanoes lying in the Andean Volcanic Belt," - imprecise language. Is it the northernmost of several Columbian volcanoes, or the northernmost of all the Columbian ones, of which there are several?
"It comprises three edifices, each made of andesitic lavas and dacitic lava flows, and pyroclastic deposits." - each made of a, b, and c.
Not done—this sentence now reads " It comprises three edifices, each which andesitic is made of lavas and dacitic lava flows, and pyroclastic deposits. " Maralia (talk) 04:45, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
I split it into two sentences. It is important that edifice is made of intermingled layers of lavas and pyroclasts. The lavas are andesitic- dacitic in composition. Ruslik (talk) 08:34, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
"but may have erupted in the historical time." - surely you are not referring to a particular historical time, but rather 'in historical times'.
"During the last glacial maximum 26–29 thousand years ago glaciers on the volcano were larger by two orders of magnitude than they are now." - this needs a comma after the introductory clause.
Better, except for the introduced typo 'occupided'.
"In the Little Ice Age, which lasted about 1600 to 1900 the area occupied by glacier was approximately 100 square kilometers (39 sq mi)." - this needs a comma after 1900.
What is this 'judging from surrounding mountains' and 'expected to be present' nonsense about flora? If there has been no relevant study, say so right in the text.
Improved clarity, but worse grammar: now reads "Scientists have not studied Ruiz's wildlife, so; judging from surrounding mountains of similar height, the volcano should have vegetation consisting of..." Maralia (talk) 04:45, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
Additionally, the rest of the sentence needs work (currently "the volcano should have vegetation consisting of many different species of woody plants, including Rubiaceae, Leguminosae, Melastomataceae, Lauraceae, and the Moraceae groups."). These are all plant families, but the list is introduced with 'species'; further, why does the last get different grammatical treatment? Maralia (talk) 04:45, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
I made improvements. Ruslik (talk) 08:34, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
"W. Cunet, and Albert Grasser, however, made the first successful ascent in 1936, partly by ski; they repeated the ascent in 1939." - no reason for the first comma.
"On the morning March 12, 1595 Nevado del Ruiz erupted." - grammar.
"It caused a lahar, which traveled down the valleys of the nearby Gualí and Lagunillas rivers, clogged up the water, killing much fish and vegetation." - grammar.
Better, but 'much fish and vegetation' needs improvement. Maralia (talk) 04:45, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
I made changes. Ruslik (talk) 08:34, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
"Water in such volcanic lakes tends to be extremely salty and contains a lot of dissolved volcanic gases." - this is an encyclopedia; we can do better than 'a lot of'.
"The people in Armero assumed that because the volcano had not erupted in 140 years, it had no reason to erupt so abruptly. Since the volcano had been dormant for 140 years before it had erupted, locals called it the "Sleeping Lion"." - internally redundant, and dissonant with the 'nearly 150 years' in the lead.
Wow, I really should copy edit each section as I go along. Fixed.
"As the Armero tragedy was caused mainly by the lack of early warnings, unwise land use, and the unpreparedness of nearby communities, the government of Colombia created a special program ("Oficina Nacional para la Atencion de Desastres", 1987) to prevent such incidents in the future." - surely it was caused by the lahar, and exacerbated by these conditions? also use italics, not quotes, on the foreign language words.
Sorry, I might have forgotten, unless Ruslik added that.
"In 2006, nine hikers aged 9 to 12 were killed by a small mudslide on the volcano." - the source says aged 12 to 19, not 9 to 12.
"As a result of heavy rainfall, the Chinchina River rose several feet above average, sending a flow of mud down from above the campers, where they could not see." - the last phrase is informally written, and doesn't capture the essence of the source: they couldn't see the rainfall, so they had no expectation of danger.
Now reads "In 2006, nine hikers aged 12 to 19 were killed by a small mudslide on the volcano. The children could not see the rainfall above, which was flooding the Chinchina River-so they did not expect any danger." This is truer to the source, but as composed, the last sentence is extraneous. Perhaps "In 2006, heavy rains on Ruiz sent a mudslide down the Chichina River, killing nine youths on a scouting expedition near the volcano." Maralia (talk) 04:45, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
Fixed as suggested. Ruslik (talk) 08:34, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
"It is believed that the children had been bathing and practicing tying knots when the mudslide fell down the mountain and swept them away." - this has no relevance whatsoever, does it?
The very first reference is incomplete, lacking an accessdate. Surely there is a more reliable source for the elevation of a mountain?
That's under debate... but I'll replace it since 5300 m is the consistent height. Ceranthor 23:19, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
Accessdates are in a mix of mdy and ISO formats; please make consistent with the article's date style.
Clearly a lot of work has been put into this, but prose work is needed to meet the criteria. Maralia (talk) 20:52, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
I've resolved a good amount. Ceranthor 23:19, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
A few more, either from new edits or stuff I didn't notice in my first pass:
"These eruptions often cause massive lahars (mudflows), which pose a threat to human and natural life." - we are not all bionic yet; surely human life falls under natural life!
Changed to "human life and environment". Ruslik (talk) 08:34, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
"The ruins of Armero still lie in the valley below it." - this looks like a throwaway sentence in the lead.
"The volcano poses a threat to nearby towns of Honda, Mariquita, Ambalema, Chinchina, Herveo, Villa Hermosa, Salgar, La Dorada." - poses a threat to the nearby towns of a, b,...and z. Also, the Villa Hermosa linked is in...Mexico :) Maralia (talk) 04:45, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
Geography and Geology: Looking through it, and leaving comments. Some of these are overly nitpicky, so feel free to dispute them; the ones I think are most important (i.e., about the content, not the presentation) will have an exclamation point at the front.
I would change "a mountain range" to "the mountain range", as as far as I believe, it's the only one, unless you count the names of the northern bifurcations, which are mostly away from the West coast.
Holocene --> Holocene-age
Ruiz - if it is roughly translated to snow-covered of Ruíz, how is Ruíz the same thing as the volcano? Is it a common shortened name for it? Also, accent needed? (I think it might be, since I just reflexively typed it with the accent.)
The Andean Volcanic Belt was produced --> is caused: better tense, because is still happening
2nd paragraph has no coherence: 1st sentence about volcanic belt, then eruptions, then specific to the volcano. (Connected with next comment: consider re-organization and integration with 3rd paragraph. Just brainstorming. If a major editor wants, I would be willing to help re-organize the geography and geology section.)
"Normally, this type of volcano..." type of volcano has only been mentioned in lede, should possibly be re-arranged so that it is mentioned in this section before this sentence.
! "generates explosive Plinian eruptions" not always, though they do. They are "strato" because of the wide variety of eruptions that deposit different volcanic strata: lavas, lahars, tehpra, ash, etc. So while this phrase is correct, I think it is misleading, because it doesn't tell the whole truth.
I don't think "lahar" is an everyday word, and it seems to be used plenty of times without a definition (maybe I missed it?). In any case, I would suggest a definition and for it to be wikilinked again, even though it is linked in the lead.
Ruiz–Tolima volcanic massif: the main article goes for your alternate name; any reason for this? I suggest either that article be moved or the primary/linked name here be moved. Also, does the i in Ruiz need an accent? (Aside: "Massif" is generally an uplifted fault-bounded block. Since the main article doesn't say that this is a massif and uses a different name for the region, I'm left wondering if it really is one. And if it is, perhaps you should say that the group of volcanoes is bounded/separated from other lands and volcanoes by faults..... Reading some reports, it looks like it isn't a massif, geologically-speaking, though the name is certainly used.)
"tephra including volcanic ash" are you trying to define tephra, or say that the tephra there is mainly volcanic ash? in any case, I'd suggest a comma after "tephra".
Hypenation? And clarity, assuming pyroclastic deposits are a part of the edifices. "It comprises three edifices-each made of andesitic lavas and dacitic lava flows, and pyroclastic deposits." to "It comprises three edifices, each of which is made of andesitic lavas, dacitic lava flows, and pyroclastic deposits." Also, is there any more specific word you can use than edifice? (Caldera?)
"The modern volcanic cone includes the summit caldera (Arenas crater) one kilometer in diameter and 240 meters (790 ft) deep at the top of the ancient Ruiz cone." Assuming you mean that the modern cone is on top of the Ruiz cone, and Ruíz needs its accent, "The modern volcanic cone sits on top of the ancient Ruíz cone, and includes the summit caldera (Arenas crater), which is one kilometer in diameter and 240 meters (790 ft) deep."
Third sentence: above sea level is what you mean, right? "The caldera is situated at 5,321 meters (17,460 ft) height and contains five lava domes: Nevado el Cisne, Alto de la Laguna, la Olleta, Alto la Pirana, and Alto de Santano." to "The caldera is situated at 5,321 meters (17,460 ft) above sea level and contains five lava domes: Nevado el Cisne, Alto de la Laguna, la Olleta, Alto la Pirana, and Alto de Santano."
! "On the two major sides of the summit, headwalls show where past avalanches occurred." I don't get it, the term headwall in geography seems to be talking about rock, not snow.
This refers to rock avalanches (i.e. landslides) like those mentioned in the "Eruptive history" section, not snow avalanches. I've reworded it for clarity. -- Avenue (talk) 08:05, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
I'll likely be back with a careful read of "glaciers" or parts of "eruptive history", but I've picked my quota of nits for now. Awickert (talk) 00:35, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the comments they are extremely useful.
Ruiz is probably is the name of a man who visited this region in about 17th century, but I was unable to find a reliable source.
Cordillera Central and Ruiz-Tolima massif are synonyms as ref18 says.
I fixed other problems that you identified.
I would appreciate the help of a geologist as am only a physicists. Ruslik (talk) 09:00, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
Thanks, I'm unfortunately more on the physics side as well, but I'll do my best to make good geology comments here. I made some minor edits, hope they're OK, will look more later. Awickert (talk) 09:57, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
As before, "!" means it's important. New, "@" means I just did it.
@ wikilink Last Glacial Maximum
! LGM timing: no ref, seems to early: see the LGM wiki article and this nature paper (which just happens to be the first thing Google scholar found). In general, I see dates closer to 20ka, but your source ("Retreat of Tropical...") puts it between 27 and 24 ka, which is still different than you write.
! 2 orders of magnitude: your source says 1500km^2, and if today is 10km^2, 2 oom makes that 1000, so it is actually more. Suggest you just say 1500, or 150 times, as "oom" while common in science, isn't common in writing for the public
@ about --> from about in sentence: makes it seem more like you're using calendar dates.
Also, you may want to put AD/CE on the dates, whichever is Wiki policy, just to make it clearer that you've switched from years ago to calendar years.
! I think this has already been asked, but one should assume that the glacier has retreated since the little ice age. I can't find this in your sources, but the general way to get little ice age glacier areas is to find the terminal moraines deposited by little ice age glaciers and reconstruct it from there, and this is clearly larger than the 80's area. It's implied that it retreats during this time, perhaps it should be a bit more specific. You could use the little ice age area, interpolate to the 80's area, and then talk about the 2003 area.
In publications, from what I know, it is better to say "The X of the glacier" than "the glacier's X"
Alternation of singular and plural in glaciers, should be consistent, is there one or are there many? I'm guessing many, one one each slope.
! Your converter must be having issues or something (16000-16000 ft)
Tighten wording for more direct, active sentences: "The glaciers, having reached altitudes as low as 4,500 meters (15,000 ft) in 1985, have now retreated to 4,800–4,900 meters (16,000–16,000 ft)." I would re-word it to something closer to: "The glaciers reached altitudes as low as 4,500 meters (15,000 ft) in 1985 but now have retreated to elevations of 4,800–4,900 meters (16,000–16,000 ft)."
Paragraph 3: The steepness of the slopes doesn't determine the drainage patterns of the glaciers; only the aspect of the slopes and the existence of drainage divides does. Therefore, I can see no reason for your concluding sentence on flow directions, and no relevance of the steepness of the slopes to the glaciers, as you write it. I think your source is clearer in this separation. The slopes could be relevant, if you talk about loss in glacial area due to the ELA moving up, or about glacier flow rates, but as-is, the slopes should be moved somewhere else. (Geol/geog?)
That's it for now. Too much computer time, going outside to play with my dog. Awickert (talk) 17:59, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
I fixed everything except:
1500/100=150, which is closer to 2 orders of magnitude;
Can you clarify your first comment in the 2 paragraph? Article already says that glaciers retreated from Little Ice Age.
Sorry - I was writing scribbling quickly, so I wasn't clear.
By 1000, I didn't mean 3 orders of magnitude: what I meant was that 10*100=1000, but the article says 1500, which is a factor of 1.5 different, and is probably significant, so I would say that saying 150 times as large would be better (a lot of people don't use "order of magnitude") and more precise than how it is now.
I think it's fine; it doesn't say that explicitly, so far as I can tell, but it does implicitly, by giving areas from the little ice age and 1985. So that's all I was saying: maybe it should be more explicit.
In addition, I still don't like the slopes being in the glaciers section; I would put that more in "geography" unless you're going to talk about how the slopes are related to the glaciers. My guess is that on a composite volcano, the slopes would be more related to angle of repose (due to the debris cover) than anything else.
Hope this clarifies. Awickert (talk) 19:51, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
Thanks! A couple more things. And tell me if you'd rather I edit the article than suggest things to you, to make it all faster.
Lahars are strictly volcanic, so "ice on the summit has melted" in geol/geog is a little too passive voice for a volcanic eruption melting them :-)
Lahars are not always triggered by eruptions. Our lahar article gives at least one example, although it could be clearer on this point. -- Avenue (talk) 23:15, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
Oh, man, sorry about that! I'm 100% wrong! Awickert (talk) 23:31, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
Suggest in glaciers that the now-1-sentence last paragraph be combined with the 2nd paragraph, or (perhaps better) that the last sentence of the 2nd paragraph be combined with it to create a paragraph about glaciers and water resources.
Looking back at my other suggestions, it looks like the important one about the timing of the LGM was missed: the article currently disagrees with both its source and the main Wikipeida article. Awickert (talk) 23:33, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
I inserted the estimate from the Nature paper. I also created new paragraph as you suggested. Ruslik (talk) 13:58, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
Thanks! I like the new paragraph. I looked at the rest of the article, and I have no technical issues with it. The prose and organization are generally all right, but are coarse in places; would any of the major editors of this article like me to go through it? Awickert (talk) 18:24, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
Thank you. I would appreciate copy-edit. Ruslik (talk) 18:41, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
OK - I'm going to be pretty busy today (working from home on weekend!) but I'll do it as soon as I have a good block of time. Awickert (talk) 18:52, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
I recently made the dates agree with the original source (Morris et al), but I hadn't noticed this discussion until now. Sorry if my edit appeared high-handed. I'm still more comfortable sticking with Morris' dates, but I won't be offended if I'm overruled. Morris et al rely on a 1996 paper here, which doesn't seem too dated, but I should try to track it down and see where their numbers come from. -- Avenue (talk) 17:42, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
Reading through their source article (Thouret et al, 1996; doi:10.1006/qres.1996.0039), it appears Morris et al probably got the date range corresponding to the 1500 km² extent wrong; it is given as 21,000–28,000 years BP in the text (with some caveats). There is an ambiguous chart later in the paper that could be read as suggesting a date range of 24,000–28,000 years BP; perhaps this is the source of the confusion. I'll correct our article, and cite the real source. Thouret et al also say that glaciers extended further earlier (with a local maximum perhaps before 48,000 years BP), and that the climate here became dryer as temperatures cooled around the global LGM, leading to a substantial retreat after 21,000 years BP. This explains the discrepancy with the date of the global LGM that Awickert noted. -- Avenue (talk) 23:27, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for fixing that - it makes sense now. Awickert (talk) 01:20, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
Based on the checker tool in the toolbox, dabs are up to speed.
Based on the checker tool in the toolbox, [[WP:EXTERNAL|external links are not up to speed.
::*..there is 1 dead link.
Based on the WP:REFTOOLS script, ref formatting is found up to speed.--Best, ₮RUCӨ 00:42, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
Support FA. The quality of the prose is less than stellar in a number of spots, but the article is complete and well-organized, and the topic is quite notable because of the deadly history of this volcano. Looie496 (talk) 14:56, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
I'm starting my proofread/copyedit that I promised more than a few days ago. I'm going to fix things in the article myself where I feel I can do so easily, and write what I think also needs to be done here. Awickert (talk) 02:05, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
Armero tragedy of 1985: 1st paragraph should be put in chronological order. Currently says (1) seismic activity in November, (2) eruption in September, (3) less activity in October. This would make the connections between these clearer. Awickert (talk) 04:04, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
In November 1984 (one year before eruption). Ruslik (talk) 04:46, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
Oh, right, I'm sorry - I guess my brain decided to leave me. Awickert (talk) 05:10, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
Eruption and lahars The paragraph has a topic, but really wanders; as a 3rd party here, I'm not sure what to do with it. Awickert (talk) 04:42, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
Which paragraph? Ruslik (talk) 04:50, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
I like it - I'll do some style clean-up, but I don't think I'll have to do much; it looks good. Awickert (talk) 18:03, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
Eruption and lahars: Paragraph 4 - the combination of the fatality counts reads 24800, but the paragraph only says "more than 23000". Awickert (talk) 05:10, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
It referred only Armero. I removed it. Ruslik (talk) 08:30, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
OK - thanks. Now one more thing: it says "Another 5000 people were injured", but only 5000 people survived. So should that be made more specific into "(almost?) everyone who survived was injured"? Awickert (talk) 18:03, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
Eruption and lahars: Paragraph 5 (last paragraph) - I think that the paragraph could be better-constructed by putting sections on indecision (i.e., doing nothing), and urgency to do something, together. The main article on the disaster has more information on this as well. I think that the statements and opinions of the scientists (especially the indecision vs. action in the first 2 sentences) should be cited somewhere. Awickert (talk) 05:15, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
I rearranged this paragraph. Ruslik (talk) 08:30, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
OK - cool - I'll take a look at this and maybe even try to add some more info. Awickert (talk) 18:03, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
Current threats: Paragraph 1 is ambiguous in that it switches back and forth between talking about the volcano and the group of volcanoes without specifying which it is talking about. Paragraph 2 should perhaps become part of a new section on reaction to the 1985 eruption. Or maybe the "current threats" section should be expanded to be "current threats and [some way to mitigate them because of the 1985 eruption; I don't know how to say this well]. It just does not illustrate current threats, but rather new preparedness and reaction to the 1985 event, so I think it needs a different heading. Awickert (talk) 05:23, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
Now it refers only to the masiff. I renamed this section. Ruslik (talk) 08:30, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
Looks good - I think I'll work on it to make it a little more clear that the numbers refer to the whole massif, and do some copyediting as well. I think I'll get to all of these that I mentioned soon-ish, but not immediately. Awickert (talk) 18:03, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
Comment - Unless I missed it while reading the article, it would be useful to mention what or who Nevado del Ruiz is named after. Black Tusk (talk) 19:49, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
The origin of "Ruiz" is unclear. Ruslik (talk) 19:50, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
Done. I think I've meddled to my satisfaction, and taken care of the outstanding issues listed above, except for a couple of tags I dropped on the article. So I would say that I am now generally satisfied with the science and the prose. Awickert (talk) 09:40, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for copy-edit. I resolved issues with those tags. Ruslik (talk) 11:04, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
The only issue with this article that I find is that certain not so well-known terms are used intermediatly, for example dacitic tephra. The average reader does not know what that is. You need to either link these or describe them in less technical terms.
That looks like the only section where those aren't wikilinked. I fixed this, and scanned very quickly for other issues with terms, but didn't find any. Thanks for pointing it out. If you see anything else, please let us know. Awickert (talk) 22:21, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
I've also added a few more wikilinks, and reworded some parts where I thought this might help the reader. -- Avenue (talk) 01:38, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
Support It's a bit messy to my standards, but I think this article is ready to be FA. ResMar 20:19, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
Closing note: this article has been at FAC for 10 weeks—possibly a record. It received Supports early on, although three editors had to come in after those supports to finish up the article. This is not an optimal use of FAC resources, and I hope another volcano article will not appear at FAC before it's ready. It is in good shape now, so I will promote it although I still see prose issues ("1595 lahar" and "1845 mudflow" begin with the same sentence structure, and many sections begin with a date, suggestive of WP:PROSELINE). Thanks to the editors who pulled this one through, but I hope FAC resources will be better used for future volcano articles. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:31, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.