Coropuna is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on April 1, 2022. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
This article is rated FA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Text and/or other creative content from this version of Qurupuna was copied or moved into Coropuna with this edit. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists. |
The following references may be useful when improving this article in the future: |
Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but
graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at
pageviews.wmcloud.org |
In response to a request at Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/Requests, I have completed a copy-edit of Coropuna. I have a few questions:
1) The first sentence in the lead is:
I may be wrong, but "a volcano...with an altitude" does not sound very elegant. I think something like this is better:
2) The first sentence of the second paragraph in Coropuna#Petrology is an incomplete sentence:
This needs to be fixed. Since I didn't know what meaning was intended, I didn't know how to fix it.
3) Toward the end of Coropuna#Petrology, you have the phrase "evolved rocks". I searched for anything in WP that would explain that phrase and found nothing. Can you explain the phrase, link it to an article, or use a different phrase?
4) In the section Coropuna#Volcanic history and future threat, first paragraph, there is a red-linked word, "planezes", which appears in this sentence:
I searched for an article to which I could link the word, and I found only Du battant des lames au sommet des montagnes, where the word is actually defined in the section Du battant des lames au sommet des montagnes#Disputes up high as a "gently inclined volcanic plateau". In that phrase, "volcanic plateau" is linked to the article Volcanic plateau, but the word "planeze(s)" does not appear anywhere in that article. The word also does not appear in Wiktionary. I'm wondering if you want to link "planezes" to that article (since there is a definition there), or to the article on Volcanic plateau. It appears to be a French word. Judging from its absence in Wikipedia articles and Wiktionary, I wonder whether it is used in English at all. Jo-Jo Eumerus and Vsmith, what do you advise?
5) In the section Coropuna#Petrology, there are two red-linked terms, "latiandesites" and "titanomagnetite". "Latiandesites" also appears, unlinked, in the last paragraph in Coropuna#Geology and geography. I could not find any article mentioning "latiandesites", but there is an article on Andesites. Do you want to link the term to that article? "Titanomagnetite" is mentioned in quite a few WP articles, so I'm surprised there is no article on it. Do you want to leave those two as red links?
6) The word "edifice" appears several times in the section Coropuna#Geology and geography, each time unlinked. The first instance is in the last paragraph in the first large section of Coropuna#Geology and geography. (I had changed "edifice" to "volcano" at the beginning of that paragraph as one of my first edits. If it is not correct, feel free to revert or change it.) To me, it is not clear what is meant by "edifice". To the average reader, an edifice is a building. I assume that here you don't mean a building but some kind of mass of rock, but I don't know if you mean one particular volcano or more than one volcano. At the beginning of the article, you mention "massif", which (to me) further complicated things. I think these terms should be clearly defined, in the article, and it should be clear what the difference is between "volcano", "massif", and "edifice", if any.
7) In the section Coropuna#Geology and geography is a red-linked term, "Nevado Firura". I searched for "Firura" and found a mention of "Phirura (Firura)" in Kuntur Sayana (Arequipa). Do you want to link "Nevado Firura" to this article? – Corinne ( talk) 22:55, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
8) In the section Coropuna#Climate and vegetation, there is a red-linked term, "ichu grass". Peter coxhead Can you find some information about this grass, and perhaps add something to this article or create a stub to which this can be linked? Corinne ( talk) 22:58, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
@ Baffle gab1978: Pinging explicitly. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 15:53, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
I see a few small things I would change; I'll get to those in a minute.; did you already handle these? Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 12:50, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
(1) Interaction between the ice cap and future eruptive activity is considered to be a hazard at Coropuna, especially in light of the extreme altitude differences that are found in the territory. (2) Likewise, earthquakes could result in the collapse of part of the ice cap.[33] (3) The lahar hazard is further augmented by the extreme relief around the volcano, up to 4,000 metres (13,000 ft) over 15 kilometres (9.3 mi) horizontal.
Based on chemical and petrographic data, the lavas formed from water-poor source material at depth. Phenocrysts formed at depths of less than 35 kilometres (22 mi).[38] Temperatures of Coropuna's eruption products are estimated at 700–1,200 metres (2,300–3,900 ft). The magmas, during their whole journey to the surface, move over vertical distances of 70–120 kilometres (43–75 mi). During this ascent, secondary magmas are formed that generate intermediary-felsic rocks. Post-eruption, meltwater derived from the ice cap has caused hydrothermal alteration of the volcano.
In Coropuna#Religious and archaeological importance is the following sentence:
I wonder if you really need "an altitude of". Without it, it would read as follows:
I think it's clear that the numbers are altitude, but I wonder what you think. Also, I want to ask you about the Inca path. The first part of this sentence reads:
This means that the path leads to the base of the mountain but no further. If that's what is meant, then all right, but if you mean that the path leads up the mountain toward the summit, then you should remove "to", so it would read:
I realize this is a somewhat unusual request. This article was promoted to GA in April 2016 based on a version I wrote. With better developed Wiki skills and with additional sources I just did a total rewrite, with which the version assessed as GA has little in common. Thus the GA star the old version received might not carry over to the current version. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 20:36, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
I prefer the current version to the one that last passed good article review. The sourcing and writing are certainly of a high quality. I can't imagine why we would delist it. Martinthewriter ( talk) 21:33, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
@ Nick Moyes: Regarding this edit, I am not seeing it on that page in the source; where did you get it from? Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk) 20:23, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
Not sure about adding File:Steam vents on Coropuna Este (30293366136).jpg to the article - AFAIK none of the other sources on Coropuna mention fumarolic activity and that makes me wonder about the image. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk) 21:12, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
So the first featured article candidacy has been withdrawn and now that it's post-Christmas, I can begin working on this. A first question is whether the external links section - which are mostly theses - should go altogether. I don't normally use these as sources as WP:SCHOLARSHIP cautions against their use and it's difficult to discern which ones are good sources, but some of these might be usable under WP:USEDBYOTHERS.
but it is completely separateis not really necessary and would be difficult to improve or elaborate on. Nothing else caught my attention here.
five kilometres (3.1 mi) long→ five-kilometre (3.1 mi) long)
The volcano can be reached on paved roads that come to the town of Andahua– needs to be rewritten, "come" does not work here (we are not in Andahua) and "go" is not much better
A number of villages surround the volcano– I do not understand why this list of miscellaneous villages is present at all, much less why they're ordered clockwise
a 20 km (12 mi) long ridge with an east–west trend– I would condense to "a 20 km (12 mi) east–west ridge"; I think this is less verbose if we're only talking about the direction; if this change is made, check other uses of "trend" to maintain consistency.
Lahars are dangerous phenomena owing to their high speed and density, causing large scale destruction and fatalities.– from this, readers unfamiliar with the subject still will not know what lahars are. I added a link, but a one-sentence explanation would be helpful here.
Clockwise around Coropuna, these include– an indiscriminate yet incomprehensive list without clear context; can this list be reduced to mention only the most significant ones?
The ice cap also features ice falls and dangerous lakes. Mudflows (lahars) originated from the ice cap and left deposits at the bottom of valleys.– dangerous has a non-neutral connotation (so I recommend elaborating more neutrally on what makes these lakes dangerous or removing altogether), and this transition from present to past tense reads rather awkwardly (I'd reorder to something like "There are also deposits resulting from lahars originating from the ice cap...").
We can start with this – more comments will follow tomorrow. ComplexRational ( talk) 01:44, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
This process created U-shaped valleys such as Buenavista, Cospanja and Tuilaqui on the southern flank, and Chaque, Mapa Mayo, Río Blanco, Torcom and Ullulo on the northern slopes.– if none of these locations are linked or significant, I think it's fine to generalize along the lines of my comment above.
and additional lakes lie on the flanks of Coropuna including Laguna Pucaylla on its northeastern side.
The most commonly cited maximum height for the volcano is 6,377 m (20,922 ft)– I'm generally not a big fan of notes listing refs—especially this many as it gives an impression of WP:OVERCITE— so if possible, could you replace note [b] with a source that directly states it's the most commonly cited height (e.g. a textbook or review article)? If not, you can leave it as is for now, but I'd be interested if there is a way later to trim the citations while keeping them consistent with the article's claims. I'd think there are even more sources for all quoted values out there, so reducing to the most reputable or commonly cited sources would eventually be the way to go.
In 1910 it was believed that— by whom?
Some have names, such as the 6,377 m (20,922 ft) high ... and Yana Ranra in the eastern sector.
I apologize for the long wait; I anticipate having more time this week to review and reply. Here goes:
In 1955, the ice limits were located at elevations of 4,900 m (16,100 ft) on the southern and at 5,400 m (17,700 ft) on the northern flank.– is this intended to compare to the present day, or do the most precise measurements date back to 1955? Either way, I'd add a sentence providing the additional context (most likely a comparison to reflect the presumed effects of global warming?).
Grey-coloured, fresh moraines– if "grey-coloured" is part of the description, I recommend moving it to the previous sentence with the rest of it.
In the Cordillera Blanca it has been estimated that– can we attribute this directly in the prose (e.g. "a 2018 study", like the last sentence) or otherwise eliminate the inherent vagueness?
ComplexRational ( talk) 02:51, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
Jo-Jo Eumerus, I lost track of progress here. Is it time yet for me to do a read-through? SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 09:43, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
I did one sample here, that explains my objection to the string of numbers in Notes. Please revert if this is worse. But I am still concerned that it is SYNTHy and that there might be a better way to formulate the entire thing. If this format works, I'll clean up the rest to be in agreement. Let me know what you all think, and if there is a better way to formulate the controversy/differences expressed in the Notes section, and I can revert or continue. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 04:03, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
Extended content
|
---|
|
If we want to go with the most authoritative sources one possibility would be to use the Global Volcanism Program - probably the most "secondary" of the sources, as I suspect that most of 'em don't do their own research and simply re-cite other sources with little double checking - and Biggar 2015 for an alternative estimate. SandyGeorgia's proposal also merits consideration, though; I can draft some text for either approach. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk) 13:49, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
Extended content
|
---|
Coropuna is the largest [1] and highest volcano in Peru, the highest mountain in the Cordillera Ampato [2] and the third-highest mountain in Peru. [3] [4] The highest point of Coropuna reaches an elevation of 6,377 metres (20,922 ft) [a] [25] [26] [27] on the northwestern dome of the mountain, [25] [28] which is also known as Coropuna Casulla. [11] Estimates on the height of Coropuna have changed over time. In the 19th century, it was one of the candidates for "highest mountain in Peru", with mountains in the Cordillera Blanca making up the other candidates, with the Mapa del Perú (Map of Peru) of Antonio Raimondi giving an estimated height of 6,949 m (22,799 ft). [29] In 1910 it was believed that the volcano was over 7,000 m (23,000 ft) high and thus the highest mountain in South America ahead of Aconcagua, [30] [31] although a North American expedition during the preceding year had determined that Coropuna was not the highest mountain in Peru as it only found an elevation of 6,615 m (21,703 ft) and Huascaran is higher than this. [32] Varying snow elevations might also lead to varying height estimates. [20] Coropuna has several summits (up to ten according to one count) [33] which exceed 6,000 m (20,000 ft) elevation, [17] plus a 5,623 m (18,448 ft) northern summit. [11] Those with individual names are the 6,377 m (20,922 ft) high northern Coropuna Casulla, the 6,171 m (20,246 ft) high western Nevado Pallacocha, the 6,161 m (20,213 ft) high central Coropuna Central II, [34] Escalera in the western sector of the volcano, Paiche in the central sector, [35] Coropuna Este [36] and Yana Ranra in the eastern sector. [35] References
|
OK, last draft text:
Extended content
|
---|
Coropuna is the largest [1] and highest volcano in Peru, the highest mountain in the Cordillera Ampato [2] and the third-highest mountain in Peru. [3] [4] The highest point of Coropuna reaches an elevation of 6,377 metres (20,922 ft) [5] [6] [7] on the northwestern dome of the mountain, [5] [8] which is also known as Coropuna Casulla. [9] Mountaineering sources also cite an elevation of 6,425 metres (21,079 ft) for the El Toro summit, [10] [11] [11] which would make Coropuna the 22nd highest mountain in the Andes. [12] [b] Estimates on the height of Coropuna have changed over time. In the 19th century, it was one of the candidates for "highest mountain in Peru", with mountains in the Cordillera Blanca making up the other candidates, with the Mapa del Perú (Map of Peru) of Antonio Raimondi giving an estimated height of 6,949 m (22,799 ft). [19] In 1910 it was believed that the volcano was over 7,000 m (23,000 ft) high and thus the highest mountain in South America ahead of Aconcagua, [20] [21] although a North American expedition during the preceding year had determined that Coropuna was not the highest mountain in Peru as it only found an elevation of 6,615 m (21,703 ft) and Huascaran is higher than this. [22] Varying snow elevations might also lead to varying height estimates. [10] Coropuna has several summits (up to ten according to one count) [23] which exceed 6,000 m (20,000 ft) elevation, [24] plus a 5,623 m (18,448 ft) northern summit. [9] Those with individual names are the 6,377 m (20,922 ft) high northern Coropuna Casulla, the 6,171 m (20,246 ft) high western Nevado Pallacocha, the 6,161 m (20,213 ft) high central Coropuna Central II, [25] Escalera in the western sector of the volcano, Paiche in the central sector, [26] Coropuna Este [27] and Yana Ranra in the eastern sector. [26] References
|
Extended content
|
---|
While we're on Notes, Jo-Jo, why do we need to list the other three? (That is, why did you not like this?) Does the reader really need to know the names of the other three? They can find them in a Wikilink if they want to delve deeper.
SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 14:15, 28 December 2019 (UTC) SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 14:15, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
|
I picked one section, to see if we were ready to go back to FAC.
So, these are mostly suggestion/questions, but work at the clause level is needed. The lengthy clauses, combined with numbers and converts, make the topic seem harder to digest than it should be. This is one section only; let's keep working. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 20:38, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
Picking another section:
No eruptions of Coropuna during historical or modern times are known and the volcano was formerly considered to be long-extinct. However, young-looking
ʻaʻā lava or
block lava flows were erupted during the Holocene and in part overlie late-glacial moraines. Their vents are now hidden beneath glacier ice and the flows have been affected by later glacial advances. These lava flows are found on the west–northwest, south–southeast and northeast side of the mountain:
SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 22:54, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
So I did some rewrites a few weeks ago here and here and I wonder if they are on the right track. Also, are there sections which are "completed" (i.e ready for FAC)? I want to know which ones still need work. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk) 11:21, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
Nicely explained, Sandy. Jo-Jo, The way I look at it is that in technical articles, one must be able to summarize technical data into heuristics that are comprehensible to a layperson. I don't believe that the heuristics themselves need to be cited to a source—although it would be good if they could—but they do require a high-level or low-res understanding of the data. That, in turn, means leaving out the inessentials, as Sandy explains. Otherwise, what we will end up having is not a narrative, but a list. It is one reason that other encyclopedias, reviews or surveys, or tertiary accounts, should be read as carefully at the journal articles. Fowler&fowler «Talk» 23:43, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
I suspect that what is happening here is that, in your honest effort to stay very true to the sources and write a comprehensive article, the article has ended up with too much information packed into sentences, some of which wind on and on, with the average reader losing the significance. Part of the art of writing is knowing not only what to add, but what to leave out.does articulate the problem more clearly than the examples of the problem did. I am guessing the problem is to find a balance between enough information per sentence/paragraph to keep the article comprehensive and catching for those readers who don't want just a summary and between it being "well-written: its prose is engaging and of a professional standard".
Regarding the religion section, that's been a problem for some time. I think the issue here is that Coropuna is important in a religious context but the sources are - unlike those cited at Ganges#Ganges in classical Indian iconography - too dispersed to write something comprehensive w/o using more than one source per sentence or writing a number of short sentences. And footnote salad notwithstanding, I don't think that is good writing. I've been looking at books and they generally don't help beyond what the journal articles say. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk) 09:37, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
If it's not, though, I am thinking that I don't see how the religion section can be done better than what it currently is. Simply put, without cherry picking or original research it's always going to be a lot of information with many sources for only so many sentences and the only way to make 'em more readable is by shuffling all citations to the end of the sentence. On the details question (and somewhat ancillary, on the "heuristics" argument), while the specific example of the "surrounding terrain" sentence can be shortened by stripping unnecessary detail, I think that elsewhere in the article (in sections that are not as contextual as "surrounding terrain") you'd end up with something overly vague, explained until it's no longer readable or original research-ish. And I don't feel that in most of the article, sentences drag on too long. Or at least, if there are ways to do this (and also change the religion section) they seem very non-obvious to me. In general I think that on a broad and not very deep topic, I feel that having many subtopics covered in not too short paragraphs are the best that can be done. Don't get me wrong, I am not saying that the suggestions so far are useless or anything (especially on overly wordy, overcited or fluff-laden sentences they have been very helpful), but sometimes there is a risk of trading one problem with another when it comes to general structure. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk) 15:13, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
It's a bit strange having "Nevado" as the first word of the article unbolded, then the bolded "Coropuna", then the definition for "Nevado", and then no further mention in the article of Nevado as part of the name. It's like starting Emily Blunt With "Lovely Emily Blunt ("Lovely," English, lit. "lurver-lie")..." and then not mentioning Emily Blunt's loveliness again. (Just an example, don't go fixing up Emily Blunt's article.) Yomangani talk 12:41, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
I wonder if User:Seattle Skier went there in 2007 and would like to review here? [1] SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 16:52, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
Jo-Jo, maybe in the Name section, now you need to work in that nevado = snow-covered. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 17:17, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
"Coropuna is a dormant volcanic complex"..."The Coropuna is a stratovolcano"..."eruptions of Coropuna itself"..."The mountain was regarded as sacred by the Inca"..."The volcano also appears in legends". Just in the lead you are describing it/them in five different ways. "The Coropuna" is never mentioned again, so I assume that the "The" is left over from some previous phrasing, and the stratovolcano/volcano/mountain wouldn't be bad if it wasn't defined in the first sentence as a volcanic complex. The "volcanic complex" is never mentioned again either, though it is referred to obliquely: "The volcano ... consists of coalesced stratovolcanoes and seven separate coulees". I imagine it is going to be a bit difficult to resolve if you want a shorthand for "volcanic complex" that isn't "volcano" and while the literature probably says "volcano,volcano,volcano". If the opening sentence could be something like "Coropuna is a dormant volcano in the Peruvian Andes formed of coalesced stratovolcanoes and seven coulees", (and with a link to volcanic complex in there somewhere) you could avoid the problem entirely. Yomangani talk 10:34, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
Please change it in the manner you think is most appropriate. Thanks for noticing. I would not have noticed the problem myself. One of those things. That is why collaboration is so useful. Fowler&fowler «Talk» 15:35, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
Following, as always, the brilliance of Yo-man's edit summaries, I came to see this. I thought I fixed all the dashes and hyphens once, but this presents a new example of things to be addressed throughout, while using User:Tony1's examples of reducing "snakes".
But if we do all that, we end up with a mess of dashes and hyphens:
indicating that the entire sentence should be recast to avoid this problem. At the same time, we can hopefully avoid the redundant use of the word "ignimbrite" three times in one sentence. And we can separate all those numbers to a sentence the reader can gloss over is they want the big picture rather than the minute detail. My prose stinks, but something like ???
This kind of work is tedious but needed throughout. (Not sure why one Ignimbrite is in upper case?) SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 21:16, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
|adj=on
for the hyphen in the convert template.
Jo-Jo Eumerus (
talk)
21:13, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
Still have to fix this one ... SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 03:17, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
Randomly picking a new section to see if problems mentioned earlier persist.
What do you think about shortening the Section title "Importance as a source of water" to something like "Water source"? This may be personal preference, but I really dislike overlong section titles.
Also, using that section for an example, heavily cited articles can present such a distraction to readers. What would you think about (just as an example) combing the two citations here:
thusly:
that is, could we not in cases like this ask the reader to wait for the punctuation to find the citation? SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 19:44, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
You've probably seen that I've been editing some sections. I am making my long promised pass-through and will write a list of sections which are IMO ready and those where there are prose questions. I suspect that we are at the stage where most of the actual writing problems are resolved and what is left are either style choices or things - like the referencing point you are asking about - which require tradeoffs. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk) 20:02, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
Use an en dash, or a word such as from or between, but not both: from 1881 to 1886 (not from 1881–1886); between June 1 and July 3 (not between June 1 – July 3)which logically would apply also the elevation ranges, although I don't want to troll through all of MOS to find that. It just reads weird to see "Between 3,000–4,000 m" for the same reason it does on date ranges.
SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 19:53, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
So, the promised piece-by-piece re-reading. This is intended to be effectively my last re-do of the text here:
I've left some questions here where I am not certain myself. I believe that other than these things the text is FAC-ready (prose-wise, that is). Calling @ SandyGeorgia, ComplexRational, and Yomangani: to see if there is input/additional issues to address. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk) 20:49, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
Please feel free to revert anything I do ! SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 22:33, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
Sources
|
---|
References
|
Stopping for now so others can review; I am feeling like I must be dreadfully ignorant, and for one year of undergrad, I was determined to be a Geology major! My edits to this point. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 23:48, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
I can't access the source, so can't correct the typo in this number myself:
SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 04:23, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
Please review; this was confusing. [2] (I apologize if I got it wrong, but I'm feeling bad about filling the talk page with so many things rather than trying to fix them directly.)
First, I removed the italics from proper names (see WP:BADITALICS). Next, Coropuna Casulla was already mentioned in the first paragraph with its height given, but that information was repeated two paragraphs later. Also, the first paragraph gave the elevation of El Toro Summit (as being more than 6,000 m), but it wasn't listed in the third paragraph among those more than 6,000 m elevation. And finally, the hyphenation for adjective problems was there, so I recast the sentence. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 05:46, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
This paper discusses thermal anomalies at Coropuna in its supplemental information sheet, but not in the actual paper. Not sure if it should be included or not. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk) 11:33, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
This paper includes some information that could be useful for inclusion iff it refers to archeological findings on Coropuna. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk) 18:36, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
To some movie poster .... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.96.116.229 ( talk) 00:29, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
Going by this it seems like lots of people are interested in the lead and fewer into the climbers. About 1/1000 also in the naming examples. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk) 15:42, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
I am not sure if this is a paper or a thesis; if the former, we could use it. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk) 16:18, 24 October 2022 (UTC)
Currently the article says Casulla, but this older source proposes it might be El Toro instead. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk) 15:57, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
The article says in 1965, but this other source mentions 1960. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk) 15:57, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk) 10:24, 19 November 2023 (UTC)
Cite error: There are <ref group=lower-alpha>
tags or {{efn}}
templates on this page, but the references will not show without a {{reflist|group=lower-alpha}}
template or {{notelist}}
template (see the
help page).
Coropuna is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on April 1, 2022. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
This article is rated FA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Text and/or other creative content from this version of Qurupuna was copied or moved into Coropuna with this edit. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists. |
The following references may be useful when improving this article in the future: |
Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but
graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at
pageviews.wmcloud.org |
In response to a request at Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/Requests, I have completed a copy-edit of Coropuna. I have a few questions:
1) The first sentence in the lead is:
I may be wrong, but "a volcano...with an altitude" does not sound very elegant. I think something like this is better:
2) The first sentence of the second paragraph in Coropuna#Petrology is an incomplete sentence:
This needs to be fixed. Since I didn't know what meaning was intended, I didn't know how to fix it.
3) Toward the end of Coropuna#Petrology, you have the phrase "evolved rocks". I searched for anything in WP that would explain that phrase and found nothing. Can you explain the phrase, link it to an article, or use a different phrase?
4) In the section Coropuna#Volcanic history and future threat, first paragraph, there is a red-linked word, "planezes", which appears in this sentence:
I searched for an article to which I could link the word, and I found only Du battant des lames au sommet des montagnes, where the word is actually defined in the section Du battant des lames au sommet des montagnes#Disputes up high as a "gently inclined volcanic plateau". In that phrase, "volcanic plateau" is linked to the article Volcanic plateau, but the word "planeze(s)" does not appear anywhere in that article. The word also does not appear in Wiktionary. I'm wondering if you want to link "planezes" to that article (since there is a definition there), or to the article on Volcanic plateau. It appears to be a French word. Judging from its absence in Wikipedia articles and Wiktionary, I wonder whether it is used in English at all. Jo-Jo Eumerus and Vsmith, what do you advise?
5) In the section Coropuna#Petrology, there are two red-linked terms, "latiandesites" and "titanomagnetite". "Latiandesites" also appears, unlinked, in the last paragraph in Coropuna#Geology and geography. I could not find any article mentioning "latiandesites", but there is an article on Andesites. Do you want to link the term to that article? "Titanomagnetite" is mentioned in quite a few WP articles, so I'm surprised there is no article on it. Do you want to leave those two as red links?
6) The word "edifice" appears several times in the section Coropuna#Geology and geography, each time unlinked. The first instance is in the last paragraph in the first large section of Coropuna#Geology and geography. (I had changed "edifice" to "volcano" at the beginning of that paragraph as one of my first edits. If it is not correct, feel free to revert or change it.) To me, it is not clear what is meant by "edifice". To the average reader, an edifice is a building. I assume that here you don't mean a building but some kind of mass of rock, but I don't know if you mean one particular volcano or more than one volcano. At the beginning of the article, you mention "massif", which (to me) further complicated things. I think these terms should be clearly defined, in the article, and it should be clear what the difference is between "volcano", "massif", and "edifice", if any.
7) In the section Coropuna#Geology and geography is a red-linked term, "Nevado Firura". I searched for "Firura" and found a mention of "Phirura (Firura)" in Kuntur Sayana (Arequipa). Do you want to link "Nevado Firura" to this article? – Corinne ( talk) 22:55, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
8) In the section Coropuna#Climate and vegetation, there is a red-linked term, "ichu grass". Peter coxhead Can you find some information about this grass, and perhaps add something to this article or create a stub to which this can be linked? Corinne ( talk) 22:58, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
@ Baffle gab1978: Pinging explicitly. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 15:53, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
I see a few small things I would change; I'll get to those in a minute.; did you already handle these? Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 12:50, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
(1) Interaction between the ice cap and future eruptive activity is considered to be a hazard at Coropuna, especially in light of the extreme altitude differences that are found in the territory. (2) Likewise, earthquakes could result in the collapse of part of the ice cap.[33] (3) The lahar hazard is further augmented by the extreme relief around the volcano, up to 4,000 metres (13,000 ft) over 15 kilometres (9.3 mi) horizontal.
Based on chemical and petrographic data, the lavas formed from water-poor source material at depth. Phenocrysts formed at depths of less than 35 kilometres (22 mi).[38] Temperatures of Coropuna's eruption products are estimated at 700–1,200 metres (2,300–3,900 ft). The magmas, during their whole journey to the surface, move over vertical distances of 70–120 kilometres (43–75 mi). During this ascent, secondary magmas are formed that generate intermediary-felsic rocks. Post-eruption, meltwater derived from the ice cap has caused hydrothermal alteration of the volcano.
In Coropuna#Religious and archaeological importance is the following sentence:
I wonder if you really need "an altitude of". Without it, it would read as follows:
I think it's clear that the numbers are altitude, but I wonder what you think. Also, I want to ask you about the Inca path. The first part of this sentence reads:
This means that the path leads to the base of the mountain but no further. If that's what is meant, then all right, but if you mean that the path leads up the mountain toward the summit, then you should remove "to", so it would read:
I realize this is a somewhat unusual request. This article was promoted to GA in April 2016 based on a version I wrote. With better developed Wiki skills and with additional sources I just did a total rewrite, with which the version assessed as GA has little in common. Thus the GA star the old version received might not carry over to the current version. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 20:36, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
I prefer the current version to the one that last passed good article review. The sourcing and writing are certainly of a high quality. I can't imagine why we would delist it. Martinthewriter ( talk) 21:33, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
@ Nick Moyes: Regarding this edit, I am not seeing it on that page in the source; where did you get it from? Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk) 20:23, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
Not sure about adding File:Steam vents on Coropuna Este (30293366136).jpg to the article - AFAIK none of the other sources on Coropuna mention fumarolic activity and that makes me wonder about the image. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk) 21:12, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
So the first featured article candidacy has been withdrawn and now that it's post-Christmas, I can begin working on this. A first question is whether the external links section - which are mostly theses - should go altogether. I don't normally use these as sources as WP:SCHOLARSHIP cautions against their use and it's difficult to discern which ones are good sources, but some of these might be usable under WP:USEDBYOTHERS.
but it is completely separateis not really necessary and would be difficult to improve or elaborate on. Nothing else caught my attention here.
five kilometres (3.1 mi) long→ five-kilometre (3.1 mi) long)
The volcano can be reached on paved roads that come to the town of Andahua– needs to be rewritten, "come" does not work here (we are not in Andahua) and "go" is not much better
A number of villages surround the volcano– I do not understand why this list of miscellaneous villages is present at all, much less why they're ordered clockwise
a 20 km (12 mi) long ridge with an east–west trend– I would condense to "a 20 km (12 mi) east–west ridge"; I think this is less verbose if we're only talking about the direction; if this change is made, check other uses of "trend" to maintain consistency.
Lahars are dangerous phenomena owing to their high speed and density, causing large scale destruction and fatalities.– from this, readers unfamiliar with the subject still will not know what lahars are. I added a link, but a one-sentence explanation would be helpful here.
Clockwise around Coropuna, these include– an indiscriminate yet incomprehensive list without clear context; can this list be reduced to mention only the most significant ones?
The ice cap also features ice falls and dangerous lakes. Mudflows (lahars) originated from the ice cap and left deposits at the bottom of valleys.– dangerous has a non-neutral connotation (so I recommend elaborating more neutrally on what makes these lakes dangerous or removing altogether), and this transition from present to past tense reads rather awkwardly (I'd reorder to something like "There are also deposits resulting from lahars originating from the ice cap...").
We can start with this – more comments will follow tomorrow. ComplexRational ( talk) 01:44, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
This process created U-shaped valleys such as Buenavista, Cospanja and Tuilaqui on the southern flank, and Chaque, Mapa Mayo, Río Blanco, Torcom and Ullulo on the northern slopes.– if none of these locations are linked or significant, I think it's fine to generalize along the lines of my comment above.
and additional lakes lie on the flanks of Coropuna including Laguna Pucaylla on its northeastern side.
The most commonly cited maximum height for the volcano is 6,377 m (20,922 ft)– I'm generally not a big fan of notes listing refs—especially this many as it gives an impression of WP:OVERCITE— so if possible, could you replace note [b] with a source that directly states it's the most commonly cited height (e.g. a textbook or review article)? If not, you can leave it as is for now, but I'd be interested if there is a way later to trim the citations while keeping them consistent with the article's claims. I'd think there are even more sources for all quoted values out there, so reducing to the most reputable or commonly cited sources would eventually be the way to go.
In 1910 it was believed that— by whom?
Some have names, such as the 6,377 m (20,922 ft) high ... and Yana Ranra in the eastern sector.
I apologize for the long wait; I anticipate having more time this week to review and reply. Here goes:
In 1955, the ice limits were located at elevations of 4,900 m (16,100 ft) on the southern and at 5,400 m (17,700 ft) on the northern flank.– is this intended to compare to the present day, or do the most precise measurements date back to 1955? Either way, I'd add a sentence providing the additional context (most likely a comparison to reflect the presumed effects of global warming?).
Grey-coloured, fresh moraines– if "grey-coloured" is part of the description, I recommend moving it to the previous sentence with the rest of it.
In the Cordillera Blanca it has been estimated that– can we attribute this directly in the prose (e.g. "a 2018 study", like the last sentence) or otherwise eliminate the inherent vagueness?
ComplexRational ( talk) 02:51, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
Jo-Jo Eumerus, I lost track of progress here. Is it time yet for me to do a read-through? SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 09:43, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
I did one sample here, that explains my objection to the string of numbers in Notes. Please revert if this is worse. But I am still concerned that it is SYNTHy and that there might be a better way to formulate the entire thing. If this format works, I'll clean up the rest to be in agreement. Let me know what you all think, and if there is a better way to formulate the controversy/differences expressed in the Notes section, and I can revert or continue. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 04:03, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
Extended content
|
---|
|
If we want to go with the most authoritative sources one possibility would be to use the Global Volcanism Program - probably the most "secondary" of the sources, as I suspect that most of 'em don't do their own research and simply re-cite other sources with little double checking - and Biggar 2015 for an alternative estimate. SandyGeorgia's proposal also merits consideration, though; I can draft some text for either approach. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk) 13:49, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
Extended content
|
---|
Coropuna is the largest [1] and highest volcano in Peru, the highest mountain in the Cordillera Ampato [2] and the third-highest mountain in Peru. [3] [4] The highest point of Coropuna reaches an elevation of 6,377 metres (20,922 ft) [a] [25] [26] [27] on the northwestern dome of the mountain, [25] [28] which is also known as Coropuna Casulla. [11] Estimates on the height of Coropuna have changed over time. In the 19th century, it was one of the candidates for "highest mountain in Peru", with mountains in the Cordillera Blanca making up the other candidates, with the Mapa del Perú (Map of Peru) of Antonio Raimondi giving an estimated height of 6,949 m (22,799 ft). [29] In 1910 it was believed that the volcano was over 7,000 m (23,000 ft) high and thus the highest mountain in South America ahead of Aconcagua, [30] [31] although a North American expedition during the preceding year had determined that Coropuna was not the highest mountain in Peru as it only found an elevation of 6,615 m (21,703 ft) and Huascaran is higher than this. [32] Varying snow elevations might also lead to varying height estimates. [20] Coropuna has several summits (up to ten according to one count) [33] which exceed 6,000 m (20,000 ft) elevation, [17] plus a 5,623 m (18,448 ft) northern summit. [11] Those with individual names are the 6,377 m (20,922 ft) high northern Coropuna Casulla, the 6,171 m (20,246 ft) high western Nevado Pallacocha, the 6,161 m (20,213 ft) high central Coropuna Central II, [34] Escalera in the western sector of the volcano, Paiche in the central sector, [35] Coropuna Este [36] and Yana Ranra in the eastern sector. [35] References
|
OK, last draft text:
Extended content
|
---|
Coropuna is the largest [1] and highest volcano in Peru, the highest mountain in the Cordillera Ampato [2] and the third-highest mountain in Peru. [3] [4] The highest point of Coropuna reaches an elevation of 6,377 metres (20,922 ft) [5] [6] [7] on the northwestern dome of the mountain, [5] [8] which is also known as Coropuna Casulla. [9] Mountaineering sources also cite an elevation of 6,425 metres (21,079 ft) for the El Toro summit, [10] [11] [11] which would make Coropuna the 22nd highest mountain in the Andes. [12] [b] Estimates on the height of Coropuna have changed over time. In the 19th century, it was one of the candidates for "highest mountain in Peru", with mountains in the Cordillera Blanca making up the other candidates, with the Mapa del Perú (Map of Peru) of Antonio Raimondi giving an estimated height of 6,949 m (22,799 ft). [19] In 1910 it was believed that the volcano was over 7,000 m (23,000 ft) high and thus the highest mountain in South America ahead of Aconcagua, [20] [21] although a North American expedition during the preceding year had determined that Coropuna was not the highest mountain in Peru as it only found an elevation of 6,615 m (21,703 ft) and Huascaran is higher than this. [22] Varying snow elevations might also lead to varying height estimates. [10] Coropuna has several summits (up to ten according to one count) [23] which exceed 6,000 m (20,000 ft) elevation, [24] plus a 5,623 m (18,448 ft) northern summit. [9] Those with individual names are the 6,377 m (20,922 ft) high northern Coropuna Casulla, the 6,171 m (20,246 ft) high western Nevado Pallacocha, the 6,161 m (20,213 ft) high central Coropuna Central II, [25] Escalera in the western sector of the volcano, Paiche in the central sector, [26] Coropuna Este [27] and Yana Ranra in the eastern sector. [26] References
|
Extended content
|
---|
While we're on Notes, Jo-Jo, why do we need to list the other three? (That is, why did you not like this?) Does the reader really need to know the names of the other three? They can find them in a Wikilink if they want to delve deeper.
SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 14:15, 28 December 2019 (UTC) SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 14:15, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
|
I picked one section, to see if we were ready to go back to FAC.
So, these are mostly suggestion/questions, but work at the clause level is needed. The lengthy clauses, combined with numbers and converts, make the topic seem harder to digest than it should be. This is one section only; let's keep working. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 20:38, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
Picking another section:
No eruptions of Coropuna during historical or modern times are known and the volcano was formerly considered to be long-extinct. However, young-looking
ʻaʻā lava or
block lava flows were erupted during the Holocene and in part overlie late-glacial moraines. Their vents are now hidden beneath glacier ice and the flows have been affected by later glacial advances. These lava flows are found on the west–northwest, south–southeast and northeast side of the mountain:
SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 22:54, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
So I did some rewrites a few weeks ago here and here and I wonder if they are on the right track. Also, are there sections which are "completed" (i.e ready for FAC)? I want to know which ones still need work. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk) 11:21, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
Nicely explained, Sandy. Jo-Jo, The way I look at it is that in technical articles, one must be able to summarize technical data into heuristics that are comprehensible to a layperson. I don't believe that the heuristics themselves need to be cited to a source—although it would be good if they could—but they do require a high-level or low-res understanding of the data. That, in turn, means leaving out the inessentials, as Sandy explains. Otherwise, what we will end up having is not a narrative, but a list. It is one reason that other encyclopedias, reviews or surveys, or tertiary accounts, should be read as carefully at the journal articles. Fowler&fowler «Talk» 23:43, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
I suspect that what is happening here is that, in your honest effort to stay very true to the sources and write a comprehensive article, the article has ended up with too much information packed into sentences, some of which wind on and on, with the average reader losing the significance. Part of the art of writing is knowing not only what to add, but what to leave out.does articulate the problem more clearly than the examples of the problem did. I am guessing the problem is to find a balance between enough information per sentence/paragraph to keep the article comprehensive and catching for those readers who don't want just a summary and between it being "well-written: its prose is engaging and of a professional standard".
Regarding the religion section, that's been a problem for some time. I think the issue here is that Coropuna is important in a religious context but the sources are - unlike those cited at Ganges#Ganges in classical Indian iconography - too dispersed to write something comprehensive w/o using more than one source per sentence or writing a number of short sentences. And footnote salad notwithstanding, I don't think that is good writing. I've been looking at books and they generally don't help beyond what the journal articles say. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk) 09:37, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
If it's not, though, I am thinking that I don't see how the religion section can be done better than what it currently is. Simply put, without cherry picking or original research it's always going to be a lot of information with many sources for only so many sentences and the only way to make 'em more readable is by shuffling all citations to the end of the sentence. On the details question (and somewhat ancillary, on the "heuristics" argument), while the specific example of the "surrounding terrain" sentence can be shortened by stripping unnecessary detail, I think that elsewhere in the article (in sections that are not as contextual as "surrounding terrain") you'd end up with something overly vague, explained until it's no longer readable or original research-ish. And I don't feel that in most of the article, sentences drag on too long. Or at least, if there are ways to do this (and also change the religion section) they seem very non-obvious to me. In general I think that on a broad and not very deep topic, I feel that having many subtopics covered in not too short paragraphs are the best that can be done. Don't get me wrong, I am not saying that the suggestions so far are useless or anything (especially on overly wordy, overcited or fluff-laden sentences they have been very helpful), but sometimes there is a risk of trading one problem with another when it comes to general structure. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk) 15:13, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
It's a bit strange having "Nevado" as the first word of the article unbolded, then the bolded "Coropuna", then the definition for "Nevado", and then no further mention in the article of Nevado as part of the name. It's like starting Emily Blunt With "Lovely Emily Blunt ("Lovely," English, lit. "lurver-lie")..." and then not mentioning Emily Blunt's loveliness again. (Just an example, don't go fixing up Emily Blunt's article.) Yomangani talk 12:41, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
I wonder if User:Seattle Skier went there in 2007 and would like to review here? [1] SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 16:52, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
Jo-Jo, maybe in the Name section, now you need to work in that nevado = snow-covered. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 17:17, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
"Coropuna is a dormant volcanic complex"..."The Coropuna is a stratovolcano"..."eruptions of Coropuna itself"..."The mountain was regarded as sacred by the Inca"..."The volcano also appears in legends". Just in the lead you are describing it/them in five different ways. "The Coropuna" is never mentioned again, so I assume that the "The" is left over from some previous phrasing, and the stratovolcano/volcano/mountain wouldn't be bad if it wasn't defined in the first sentence as a volcanic complex. The "volcanic complex" is never mentioned again either, though it is referred to obliquely: "The volcano ... consists of coalesced stratovolcanoes and seven separate coulees". I imagine it is going to be a bit difficult to resolve if you want a shorthand for "volcanic complex" that isn't "volcano" and while the literature probably says "volcano,volcano,volcano". If the opening sentence could be something like "Coropuna is a dormant volcano in the Peruvian Andes formed of coalesced stratovolcanoes and seven coulees", (and with a link to volcanic complex in there somewhere) you could avoid the problem entirely. Yomangani talk 10:34, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
Please change it in the manner you think is most appropriate. Thanks for noticing. I would not have noticed the problem myself. One of those things. That is why collaboration is so useful. Fowler&fowler «Talk» 15:35, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
Following, as always, the brilliance of Yo-man's edit summaries, I came to see this. I thought I fixed all the dashes and hyphens once, but this presents a new example of things to be addressed throughout, while using User:Tony1's examples of reducing "snakes".
But if we do all that, we end up with a mess of dashes and hyphens:
indicating that the entire sentence should be recast to avoid this problem. At the same time, we can hopefully avoid the redundant use of the word "ignimbrite" three times in one sentence. And we can separate all those numbers to a sentence the reader can gloss over is they want the big picture rather than the minute detail. My prose stinks, but something like ???
This kind of work is tedious but needed throughout. (Not sure why one Ignimbrite is in upper case?) SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 21:16, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
|adj=on
for the hyphen in the convert template.
Jo-Jo Eumerus (
talk)
21:13, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
Still have to fix this one ... SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 03:17, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
Randomly picking a new section to see if problems mentioned earlier persist.
What do you think about shortening the Section title "Importance as a source of water" to something like "Water source"? This may be personal preference, but I really dislike overlong section titles.
Also, using that section for an example, heavily cited articles can present such a distraction to readers. What would you think about (just as an example) combing the two citations here:
thusly:
that is, could we not in cases like this ask the reader to wait for the punctuation to find the citation? SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 19:44, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
You've probably seen that I've been editing some sections. I am making my long promised pass-through and will write a list of sections which are IMO ready and those where there are prose questions. I suspect that we are at the stage where most of the actual writing problems are resolved and what is left are either style choices or things - like the referencing point you are asking about - which require tradeoffs. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk) 20:02, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
Use an en dash, or a word such as from or between, but not both: from 1881 to 1886 (not from 1881–1886); between June 1 and July 3 (not between June 1 – July 3)which logically would apply also the elevation ranges, although I don't want to troll through all of MOS to find that. It just reads weird to see "Between 3,000–4,000 m" for the same reason it does on date ranges.
SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 19:53, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
So, the promised piece-by-piece re-reading. This is intended to be effectively my last re-do of the text here:
I've left some questions here where I am not certain myself. I believe that other than these things the text is FAC-ready (prose-wise, that is). Calling @ SandyGeorgia, ComplexRational, and Yomangani: to see if there is input/additional issues to address. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk) 20:49, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
Please feel free to revert anything I do ! SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 22:33, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
Sources
|
---|
References
|
Stopping for now so others can review; I am feeling like I must be dreadfully ignorant, and for one year of undergrad, I was determined to be a Geology major! My edits to this point. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 23:48, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
I can't access the source, so can't correct the typo in this number myself:
SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 04:23, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
Please review; this was confusing. [2] (I apologize if I got it wrong, but I'm feeling bad about filling the talk page with so many things rather than trying to fix them directly.)
First, I removed the italics from proper names (see WP:BADITALICS). Next, Coropuna Casulla was already mentioned in the first paragraph with its height given, but that information was repeated two paragraphs later. Also, the first paragraph gave the elevation of El Toro Summit (as being more than 6,000 m), but it wasn't listed in the third paragraph among those more than 6,000 m elevation. And finally, the hyphenation for adjective problems was there, so I recast the sentence. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 05:46, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
This paper discusses thermal anomalies at Coropuna in its supplemental information sheet, but not in the actual paper. Not sure if it should be included or not. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk) 11:33, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
This paper includes some information that could be useful for inclusion iff it refers to archeological findings on Coropuna. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk) 18:36, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
To some movie poster .... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.96.116.229 ( talk) 00:29, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
Going by this it seems like lots of people are interested in the lead and fewer into the climbers. About 1/1000 also in the naming examples. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk) 15:42, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
I am not sure if this is a paper or a thesis; if the former, we could use it. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk) 16:18, 24 October 2022 (UTC)
Currently the article says Casulla, but this older source proposes it might be El Toro instead. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk) 15:57, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
The article says in 1965, but this other source mentions 1960. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk) 15:57, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk) 10:24, 19 November 2023 (UTC)
Cite error: There are <ref group=lower-alpha>
tags or {{efn}}
templates on this page, but the references will not show without a {{reflist|group=lower-alpha}}
template or {{notelist}}
template (see the
help page).