![]() | Aucanquilcha has been listed as one of the
Natural sciences good articles under the
good article criteria. If you can improve it further,
please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can
reassess it. Review: November 16, 2015. ( Reviewed version). |
![]() | A fact from Aucanquilcha appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the
Did you know column on 11 December 2015 (
check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
| ![]() |
![]() | This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | The following references may be useful when improving this article in the future: |
In response to a request for a copyedit at WP:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/Requests, I began to read and copyedit Aucanquilcha. I'm always happy to read about another volcano. I made a number of minor edits to improve the prose. Then I noticed that, while the beginning of the article was full of grammatical errors, the further I got into the article the better the writing became until there were no errors. Then, suddenly, there would be a few sentences with a lot of basic errors in them, and then the perfect prose returned. For the first few sections, I read every word (trying to learn something). After a while, I realized that the prose was so detailed and so quasi-technical that it might have come directly from a geology textbook and I stopped reading. I don't know whether this editor wrote the entire article and just had some lapses in grammar here and there, or just wrote a few sentences himself/herself and copied the rest from a textbook. I'm not sure, but maybe parts are too detailed and too technical for a Wikipedia article. Also, if parts are copied, that's not good, either.
Also, I noticed several times references to different periods, but with no link and no explanation, as if the reader is supposed to know what these periods are.
Finally, (and this is minor compared to the possibly bigger issues I raised above), I tried to find an article to link to for "arc magma". Should it be to the article Volcanic arc? Even in that article, however, I didn't see much specifically about "arc magma". Over to you. Have fun. Corinne ( talk) 02:26, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
Yeah, "mya" means "million years ago". According to the source, it is a 2 million year gap between two phases of eruptive activity. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 15:59, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
I also prefer Vsmith's suggestion of The Gordo group, which erupted 6–4 mya following a probable 2-million-year hiatus, is located... but with one additional change - capitalise group to Group if it is an official local stratigraphic name of the rock unit in question. Perhaps Jo-Jo Eumerus can confirm this from references.
It's probably just water under the bridge now, but for the record, my thinking with "erupting/erupted" was along the lines of: would we write e.g. "Building after 9 years of independence from Britain, the White House is located in Washington DC" or "Built after 9 years of independence from Britain, the White House is located in Washington DC"? I'd write the latter. GeoWriter ( talk) 19:56, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
Argh. I've added in a missing word. As for the other change, they mean the same thing but the previous text was too similar to the source - excessive similarity in wording between an article and its sources can be a copyright issue. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 22:11, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
Jo-Jo Eumerus I saw your recent edits, including one to this sentence in which you changed "found" to "located":
First, the prepositional phrase "in 1977" is in the wrong place. Second, the verb "located" can mean several things: "found", "situated", and "placed". I assume you thought "found" was not the right verb. That leaves two meanings. I think it would sound more like "situated" if you removed (or moved) "in 1977". When you give a date like that, it suggests that something specific happened (either "found" or "placed") in that year. What was the reason for including "in 1977"? What happened then? If you mean that in 1977 "other sulfur mines" were established, then you might think about changing the verb from "located" to "established".
Third, you have "other sulfur mines" (plural) in this sentence, but the sentences immediately following it refer to "the mine" (singular). This ought to be cleared up. Corinne ( talk) 00:17, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
The last paragraph in the section starts with: "A sulfide mineral close in composition to Cu
5FeS
6 (idaite), together with native sulfur and covellite was described in 2000." I can't access the reference given, but I don't see the relevance of that sentence to the article. The mineral idaite is described as a breakdown product of bornite and a
supergene mineral according to Mindat. How is that factoid relevant. The presence of covellite suggests supergene enrichment.
Vsmith (
talk) 03:27, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
I've waited for most changes to the article to be made before going through it once more to look for any errors or unclear sentences. I will leave questions and concerns here. I'll leave a few this evening and then continue reading tomorrow.
1) In the lead, it starts out by saying Aucanquilcha is a massive stratovolcano. In the next sentence we ready that it is a ridge...composed of a complex of stratovolcanoes:
Already, the reader will be scratching his head. Is Aucanquilcha a stratovolcano or a ridge composed of stratovolcanoes?
The next sentence starts, "At Aucanquilcha volcano". The subject of the next sentence is "the cluster of volcanoes". The next sentence mentions: "both the principal Aucanquilcha complex and the other volcanoes of the cluster". I think you are introducing too many different terms in this paragraph, and it jumps around too much (probably because it is summary of the rest of the article), and it will end up confusing the reader. I'm sure you know what you mean by "the principal Aucanquilcha complex" and "the other volcanoes of the cluster", but to the average reader who is already confused, this will hopelessly confuse him. I would reduce the number of terms you introduce in the lead (or at east the first paragraph), and try to organize them in a way that makes sense, such as smaller unit to larger, or larger unit to smaller. You can explain the "complexes" later.
2) You mention fumarolic activity and sulfur deposits in the middle of the first paragraph. Then you say more about the sulfur in the second paragraph. I think all information about sulfur deposits and mining should be kept together.
3) I'm wondering whether you might have too many details about the sulfur mining in the second paragraph of the lead.
4) In the first paragraph of Aucanquilcha#Regional setting you have cubic kilometres per millenium, and then in parentheses cubic miles per Gs. What is "Gs"?
5) In the second paragraph, what is "partial melts"? Can you either explain this phrase or link it to an article that would explain it?
6) At the beginning of the third paragraph is the following sentence:
For a non-expert, the word "local" doesn't mean much. What does it mean? Would it be possible to substitute a more ordinary word such as "nearby"?
7) In the next sentence, we ready "an early peak is followed by later...activity". For the non-expert, could you explain what "an early peak" means? Is this (a) early in the development of a volcano or (b) early in a particular eruption, or something else? If this is made clear, I think "is followed by later...activity" will also make more sense. (Followed immediately? Followed years, decades, centuries, or millennia later? I see "per millennium" there, but still, for a non-expert, there will be some guessing here at the word "later".)
– Well, that's all for now. – Corinne ( talk) 03:22, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
8) I've pretty much finished. There is one paragraph that maybe could be improved. It is the last paragraph in Aucanquilcha#Local setting. I'll copy it here, and number the sentences, for ease of discussion:
I think the paragraph is a bit choppy, not cohesive, and perhaps a bit repetitive.
(a) The first two sentences are all right. Toward the end of the second sentence you say:
and then the third sentence says:
Is it really necessary to keep these as separate sentences? Couldn't they be combined?
(b) The fourth sentence reads:
i. This is the third time in the paragraph we see a form of "alter". First, "hydrothermal alteration", then "subject to the most alteration", now "heavily altered", and in the next sentence, "hydrothermal alteration" again. It would be good if these could be reduced by one or two.
ii. Is "fumarole activity" (fourth sentence) really different from "hydrothermal alteration"? Is it an example of a type of hydrothermal activity? The paragraph can be improved, and one of the changes would depend upon the relationship between "fumarole activity" and "hydrothermal alteration".
iii. Also, is "the central part of the complex" the same area as "the summit area and between the Angulo and Azufrera summits" (second sentence)? If so, that's another place the sentences could be consolidated, reducing unnecessary repetition. If you cannot, or don't feel like, re-arranging things, if you will answer my questions, above, I'll do the re-arranging. Corinne ( talk) 17:57, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
Reviewer: Spinningspark ( talk · contribs) 23:14, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
I'm generally ok with the lead, but it could do with just slightly expanding. I suggest that the reason Miño Volcano in singled out for mention is explained (is it the largest in the group?) and a few words, perhaps a new paragraph, on the rock types.
GA passed
Spinning
Spark 22:20, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
![]() | Aucanquilcha has been listed as one of the
Natural sciences good articles under the
good article criteria. If you can improve it further,
please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can
reassess it. Review: November 16, 2015. ( Reviewed version). |
![]() | A fact from Aucanquilcha appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the
Did you know column on 11 December 2015 (
check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
| ![]() |
![]() | This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | The following references may be useful when improving this article in the future: |
In response to a request for a copyedit at WP:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/Requests, I began to read and copyedit Aucanquilcha. I'm always happy to read about another volcano. I made a number of minor edits to improve the prose. Then I noticed that, while the beginning of the article was full of grammatical errors, the further I got into the article the better the writing became until there were no errors. Then, suddenly, there would be a few sentences with a lot of basic errors in them, and then the perfect prose returned. For the first few sections, I read every word (trying to learn something). After a while, I realized that the prose was so detailed and so quasi-technical that it might have come directly from a geology textbook and I stopped reading. I don't know whether this editor wrote the entire article and just had some lapses in grammar here and there, or just wrote a few sentences himself/herself and copied the rest from a textbook. I'm not sure, but maybe parts are too detailed and too technical for a Wikipedia article. Also, if parts are copied, that's not good, either.
Also, I noticed several times references to different periods, but with no link and no explanation, as if the reader is supposed to know what these periods are.
Finally, (and this is minor compared to the possibly bigger issues I raised above), I tried to find an article to link to for "arc magma". Should it be to the article Volcanic arc? Even in that article, however, I didn't see much specifically about "arc magma". Over to you. Have fun. Corinne ( talk) 02:26, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
Yeah, "mya" means "million years ago". According to the source, it is a 2 million year gap between two phases of eruptive activity. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 15:59, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
I also prefer Vsmith's suggestion of The Gordo group, which erupted 6–4 mya following a probable 2-million-year hiatus, is located... but with one additional change - capitalise group to Group if it is an official local stratigraphic name of the rock unit in question. Perhaps Jo-Jo Eumerus can confirm this from references.
It's probably just water under the bridge now, but for the record, my thinking with "erupting/erupted" was along the lines of: would we write e.g. "Building after 9 years of independence from Britain, the White House is located in Washington DC" or "Built after 9 years of independence from Britain, the White House is located in Washington DC"? I'd write the latter. GeoWriter ( talk) 19:56, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
Argh. I've added in a missing word. As for the other change, they mean the same thing but the previous text was too similar to the source - excessive similarity in wording between an article and its sources can be a copyright issue. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 22:11, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
Jo-Jo Eumerus I saw your recent edits, including one to this sentence in which you changed "found" to "located":
First, the prepositional phrase "in 1977" is in the wrong place. Second, the verb "located" can mean several things: "found", "situated", and "placed". I assume you thought "found" was not the right verb. That leaves two meanings. I think it would sound more like "situated" if you removed (or moved) "in 1977". When you give a date like that, it suggests that something specific happened (either "found" or "placed") in that year. What was the reason for including "in 1977"? What happened then? If you mean that in 1977 "other sulfur mines" were established, then you might think about changing the verb from "located" to "established".
Third, you have "other sulfur mines" (plural) in this sentence, but the sentences immediately following it refer to "the mine" (singular). This ought to be cleared up. Corinne ( talk) 00:17, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
The last paragraph in the section starts with: "A sulfide mineral close in composition to Cu
5FeS
6 (idaite), together with native sulfur and covellite was described in 2000." I can't access the reference given, but I don't see the relevance of that sentence to the article. The mineral idaite is described as a breakdown product of bornite and a
supergene mineral according to Mindat. How is that factoid relevant. The presence of covellite suggests supergene enrichment.
Vsmith (
talk) 03:27, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
I've waited for most changes to the article to be made before going through it once more to look for any errors or unclear sentences. I will leave questions and concerns here. I'll leave a few this evening and then continue reading tomorrow.
1) In the lead, it starts out by saying Aucanquilcha is a massive stratovolcano. In the next sentence we ready that it is a ridge...composed of a complex of stratovolcanoes:
Already, the reader will be scratching his head. Is Aucanquilcha a stratovolcano or a ridge composed of stratovolcanoes?
The next sentence starts, "At Aucanquilcha volcano". The subject of the next sentence is "the cluster of volcanoes". The next sentence mentions: "both the principal Aucanquilcha complex and the other volcanoes of the cluster". I think you are introducing too many different terms in this paragraph, and it jumps around too much (probably because it is summary of the rest of the article), and it will end up confusing the reader. I'm sure you know what you mean by "the principal Aucanquilcha complex" and "the other volcanoes of the cluster", but to the average reader who is already confused, this will hopelessly confuse him. I would reduce the number of terms you introduce in the lead (or at east the first paragraph), and try to organize them in a way that makes sense, such as smaller unit to larger, or larger unit to smaller. You can explain the "complexes" later.
2) You mention fumarolic activity and sulfur deposits in the middle of the first paragraph. Then you say more about the sulfur in the second paragraph. I think all information about sulfur deposits and mining should be kept together.
3) I'm wondering whether you might have too many details about the sulfur mining in the second paragraph of the lead.
4) In the first paragraph of Aucanquilcha#Regional setting you have cubic kilometres per millenium, and then in parentheses cubic miles per Gs. What is "Gs"?
5) In the second paragraph, what is "partial melts"? Can you either explain this phrase or link it to an article that would explain it?
6) At the beginning of the third paragraph is the following sentence:
For a non-expert, the word "local" doesn't mean much. What does it mean? Would it be possible to substitute a more ordinary word such as "nearby"?
7) In the next sentence, we ready "an early peak is followed by later...activity". For the non-expert, could you explain what "an early peak" means? Is this (a) early in the development of a volcano or (b) early in a particular eruption, or something else? If this is made clear, I think "is followed by later...activity" will also make more sense. (Followed immediately? Followed years, decades, centuries, or millennia later? I see "per millennium" there, but still, for a non-expert, there will be some guessing here at the word "later".)
– Well, that's all for now. – Corinne ( talk) 03:22, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
8) I've pretty much finished. There is one paragraph that maybe could be improved. It is the last paragraph in Aucanquilcha#Local setting. I'll copy it here, and number the sentences, for ease of discussion:
I think the paragraph is a bit choppy, not cohesive, and perhaps a bit repetitive.
(a) The first two sentences are all right. Toward the end of the second sentence you say:
and then the third sentence says:
Is it really necessary to keep these as separate sentences? Couldn't they be combined?
(b) The fourth sentence reads:
i. This is the third time in the paragraph we see a form of "alter". First, "hydrothermal alteration", then "subject to the most alteration", now "heavily altered", and in the next sentence, "hydrothermal alteration" again. It would be good if these could be reduced by one or two.
ii. Is "fumarole activity" (fourth sentence) really different from "hydrothermal alteration"? Is it an example of a type of hydrothermal activity? The paragraph can be improved, and one of the changes would depend upon the relationship between "fumarole activity" and "hydrothermal alteration".
iii. Also, is "the central part of the complex" the same area as "the summit area and between the Angulo and Azufrera summits" (second sentence)? If so, that's another place the sentences could be consolidated, reducing unnecessary repetition. If you cannot, or don't feel like, re-arranging things, if you will answer my questions, above, I'll do the re-arranging. Corinne ( talk) 17:57, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
Reviewer: Spinningspark ( talk · contribs) 23:14, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
I'm generally ok with the lead, but it could do with just slightly expanding. I suggest that the reason Miño Volcano in singled out for mention is explained (is it the largest in the group?) and a few words, perhaps a new paragraph, on the rock types.
GA passed
Spinning
Spark 22:20, 16 November 2015 (UTC)