Article ( | visual edit | history) · Article talk ( | history) · Watch

Nominator: Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk · contribs) 15:06, 9 February 2024 (UTC) reply

Reviewer: Kusma ( talk · contribs) 16:18, 2 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Will review this in a few days. — Kusma ( talk) 16:18, 2 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Content and prose review

• Lead: The "Radiometric dating has yielded ages of less than 1.5 million" does not seem to be in the body.

  Added, this source needs to work again before I can assign a page number. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk) 09:24, 9 June 2024 (UTC) reply

  Seems to be page 3. Let me know if you continue to have problems accessing the source, I can email the PDF. — Kusma ( talk) 09:39, 9 June 2024 (UTC) reply

• What does the name mean? Alternative name "Negros de Aras" is only in the infobox, not in the body, although it seems to be used.

  Added. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk) 09:24, 9 June 2024 (UTC) reply

• Geography: Stratovolcanoes [..] include Socompa south, Pular east of the volcanic field perhaps clearer with "to the South of" or similar.

  Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk) 09:24, 9 June 2024 (UTC) reply

• Check your links. Monturaqui is a volcano, and Peine a town in Germany. You probably mean es:Peine (Chile).

  Unlinked as {{ ill}} does not seem to work for titles that collide with an unrelated enwiki page. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk) 09:24, 9 June 2024 (UTC) reply

  Added the Peine link back in using |lt=. — Kusma ( talk) 09:39, 9 June 2024 (UTC) reply

• What minerals are being mined in the area?

  Copper, I guess. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk) 09:24, 9 June 2024 (UTC) reply

• Interest in the monogenetic volcanoes of the area arose in the 2010s and 2020 who is interested in them? geologists or people who want to show them to tourists or other people?

  Can't answer this question until the source works again. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk) 09:24, 9 June 2024 (UTC) reply

• The location description would benefit from a map. (The one given in the coordinates section of the infobox helps, but does not really show the extent of El Negrillar).

  Added. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk) 09:24, 9 June 2024 (UTC) reply

• Geology: El Negrillar is by far the largest of all these monogenetic volcanoes. is it one volcano or several volcanoes?

  Corrected. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk) 09:24, 9 June 2024 (UTC) reply

• What does "Rocks [...] define a calc-alkaline suite with five distinct members" mean in lay terms? I don't understand it.

  It means that five distinct rock types can be grouped into one family known as "calc-alkaline". Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk) 09:24, 9 June 2024 (UTC) reply

• Eruption history: would be nice to gloss Pleistocene.

  Added. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk) 09:24, 9 June 2024 (UTC) reply

• Ages ... is often not reflected in the appearance of the vents grammar seems off

  Rewritten. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk) 09:24, 9 June 2024 (UTC) reply

  Still weird: Ages ... does not match ... — Kusma ( talk) 13:44, 9 June 2024 (UTC) reply

  Fixed. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk) 14:28, 9 June 2024 (UTC) reply

• Socompa collapsed and partly buried the El Negrillar volcanoes. Is Socompa part of El Negrillar or not? Might be easier to understand if you repeat that Socompa is another volcano south of El Negrillar?

  No, it's a separate volcano. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk) 09:24, 9 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Source spotchecks

Numbering from special:permanentlink/1224010639.

• 1a,b: ok. Note that they say "190 km2 area", unlike the "exceeds 220 square kilometres (85 sq mi).[18]".

  Aye, Loaiza 2023 expanded the known area of the field. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk) 09:24, 9 June 2024 (UTC) reply

• 3a: ok (although the citation could cover slightly more I think

  Can't do anything about this until the source works again. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk) 09:24, 9 June 2024 (UTC) reply

  Now it works again. What additional information do you think would fit? Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk) 13:17, 9 June 2024 (UTC) reply

  I can't remember what I was thinking about here. — Kusma ( talk) 13:44, 9 June 2024 (UTC) reply

• 4a: ok
• 6b: did you mean to cite the page with the map?

  Can't do anything about this until the source works again. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk) 09:24, 9 June 2024 (UTC) reply

  Yes. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk) 13:17, 9 June 2024 (UTC) reply

• 11a: ok.
• 24: looks ok. I like the map.
• 26: ok
• 32: looks ok

Spotchecks look fine, minor comments above. — Kusma ( talk) 21:22, 6 June 2024 (UTC) reply

General comments and GA criteria

Good Article review progress box Criteria: 1a. prose () 1b. MoS () 2a. ref layout () 2b. cites WP:RS () 2c. no WP:OR () 2d. no WP:CV () 3a. broadness () 3b. focus () 4. neutral () 5. stable () 6a. free or tagged images () 6b. pics relevant () Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked are unassessed

• Prose: Quite dense and full of technical terms, but not much that would be a GA showstopper. See comments above.
• MoS: looks OK. Lead is short, but so is the article.
• Ref layout is fine, sources are scholarly articles.
• Anything known about vegetation/fauna? Otherwise looks reasonably broad.

  No, nothing specific about the field itself. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk) 09:24, 9 June 2024 (UTC) reply

• No concerns with neutrality and stability.
• Main image is fine from a licensing point of view, but it is hard to tell what we see. What is the scale of the image? It looks so weird that it could be anything from a millimetre to a thousand kilometres across. Can you try to address this in the caption?

  Tried to. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk) 13:17, 9 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Source checks next. — Kusma ( talk) 20:55, 6 June 2024 (UTC) reply

• Did something similar. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk) 09:24, 9 June 2024 (UTC) reply

@ Jo-Jo Eumerus: review done, awaiting your response. — Kusma ( talk) 21:23, 6 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Better. Jo-Jo Eumerus: One grammar point above remains. — Kusma ( talk) 13:44, 9 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Passing. — Kusma ( talk) 15:06, 9 June 2024 (UTC) reply