This article is about the highest geothermal area in the world, and the largest of the Southern Hemisphere with over 100 geothermal manifestations such as
geysers. It is today mainly a tourism destination, and also a research object for scientists analyzing microbial life in extreme habitats comparable to
Mars. In the past it was also prospected for
geothermal power generation but a major incident in 2009, which had major implications both for regional geothermal power politics and natives-government relations, has probably terminated this prospecting.
Jo-Jo Eumerus (
talk)
14:39, 29 August 2021 (UTC)reply
Image review
Is there a reason to {{clear}} Climate and biology, rather than just moving the image up?
"The vents are sites of populations of
extremophile microorganisms and have been studied as analogs for the
early Earth and possible past
life on Mars." implies that there were/are similar vents on Mars - if that is right could you say a bit more in the body - if wrong suggest splitting into 2 sentences to clarify
"As of 2010[update], about 10.9
gigawatt geothermal energy are produced on Earth, not all of it linked to active volcanism." could be deleted unless you are comparing it with the potential of this field in which case it should be updated and might be better to be put closer to the potential for this field.
While this has passed the important image review the nomination has been open for over three weeks and is showing little sign of gaining a consensus to support. Unless there is a significant change in this over the next two or three days, I am afraid that it is liable to be archived.
Gog the Mild (
talk)
19:28, 19 September 2021 (UTC)reply
@
Gog the Mild: The internet for my PC has been out for two days and I was busy prior to that so I haven't been able to take a good look at this article. I will try to review it in a bit. Volcanoguy15:25, 20 September 2021 (UTC)reply
I just got back to a stable place where I can usefully help out. Like
Kusma, I'm not sure how much I can contribute in terms of the topic. But I'll certainly try and review to the best of my abilities in the next couple of days.
Wtfiv (
talk)
07:16, 28 September 2021 (UTC)reply
Support from Volcanoguy
Geomorphology and geography
"The field is located 89 kilometres (55 mi)-80 kilometres (50 mi) north". Should probably use 80–89 kilometres (50–55 mi).
"From north to south the andesitic stratovolcanoes include the 5,651-metre 18,540 ft)[20][7][21] or 5,696 metres (18,688 ft) high". 5,696 metres should be 5,696-metre. Also citation error.
"and the 5,314-metre (17,434 ft) high Volcan Tatio, and they collectively form the El Tatio volcanic group.[20][7][21][b]" should be "and the 5,314-metre (17,434 ft) high Volcan Tatio, which collectively form the El Tatio volcanic group." Also citation error.
"and is characterized by fumaroles, hot springs, steam vents known as soffioni and steaming soil" would read better as "and is characterized by fumaroles, hot springs, steam vents and steaming soil" with "steam vents" piped to the soffioni article.
"Stronger geothermal activity is located within three discrete areas covering a total of 10 square kilometres (3.9 sq mi) surface, and includes boiling water fountains, hot springs, geysers, mudpots, mud volcanoes and sinter terraces;[47][13]" Citation error.
"Many vents are linked to fractures that run northwest-southeast or southwest-northeast across the field." En dashes.
"Geysers and also water fountains discharge from up to 3-metre (9.8 ft) high cones[70][66]" Citation error.
"The activity of geysers is not stable over time, changes in water supply or in the properties of the conduit that supplies them can cause changes in their eruptive activity." A semicolon would probably be better than a comma.
"The region was dominated by andesitic volcanism producing lava flows until the late Miocene, then large scale ignimbrite activity took place between 10 and 1 million years ago." Large-scale.
"The APVC is underpinned by a large magma chamber with the shape of a sill, the Altiplano-Puna Magma Body; a number of volcanoes and geothermal system including El Tatio are geographically associated with the Altiplano-Puna Magma Body." Geothermal systems.
"The terrain at El Tatio is formed by Jurassic–Cretaceous sediments of marine and volcanic origin, Tertiary–Holocene volcanic formations that were emplaced in various episodes, and recent sediments formed by glaciers, alluvium, colluvium and material formed by the geothermal field, such as sinter.[78][21]" Citation error.
"Hydrothermal alteration of country rock has occurred at El Tatio, it has yielded large deposits of alteration minerals such as illite, nobleite, smectite, teruggite and ulexite." would probably read better as "Hydrothermal alteration of country rock at El Tatio has yielded large deposits of alteration minerals such as illite, nobleite, smectite, teruggite and ulexite."
"The summit parts of several volcanoes of the El Tatio volcanic group have been bleached and discoloured by hydrothermal activity." I would reword this to "The summits of several volcanoes comprising the El Tatio volcanic group have been bleached and discoloured by hydrothermal activity."
"The source of heat of the whole complex appears to be the Laguna Colorada caldera,[84][21][85] the El Tatio volcanic group,[41][47] the Cerro Guacha and Pastos Grandes calderas[86][15] or the Altiplano-Puna Magma Body.[87]" Citation errors.
"The water travels through a number of aquifers that correspond to permeable rock formations, such as the Salado and Puripicar ignimbrites,[92][90] as well as through faults and fractures in the rock." Citation error.
"Arsenic concentrations in waters at El Tatio can reach 40 milligrams per litre (2.3×10−5 oz/cu in)[99]-50 milligrams per litre (2.9×10−5 oz/cu in)". I would use 40–50 milligrams per litre (2.3×10−5–2.9×10−5 oz/cu in).
"Carbon dioxide is the most important fumarole gas, followed by hydrogen sulfide.[107][85][53]" Citation errors.
Composition of spring deposits
"Volcanic rock fragments such as plagioclase and quartz are found within cavities of the sinter." Plagioclase and quartz are minerals, not rock fragments.
"Biofilms and microbial mats are omnipresent at El Tatio,[133] including Calothrix,[70][65] Leptolyngbya,[134] Lyngbya and Phormidium[e] cyanobacteria, which form mats within the hot springs covering the solid surfaces, including oncoids and the sinter.[70][65]" Citation errors.
Geological history
"The intersection between northwest-southeast trending and northnorthwest-southsoutheast-trending lineaments at El Tatio has been correlated with the occurrence of geothermal activity." Northwest–southwest trending, north-northwest–south-southeast trending.
"This strong ignimbrite volcanism is associated with activity of the Altiplano–Puna volcanic complex, which has produced dacite dominated large volume ignimbrites and sizable calderas, starting from the middle Miocene." I would reword this to "This strong ignimbrite volcanism is associated with activity of the Altiplano–Puna volcanic complex, which has produced large volume dacite ignimbrites and sizable calderas, starting from the middle Miocene."
"Petrological data suggest that over time the erupted lavas of the El Tatio volcanic group have become more mafic, with older products being andesitic and later ones basaltic-andesitic." Is this implying the later lavas are both basaltic and andesitic or is it referring to
basaltic andesite?
"There is no recorded historical volcanism in the El Tatio area[47] and volcanism has not directly affected it since about 27,000 years." I'm thinking "for about 27,000 years" might be better wording.
"Research published in 2020 suggests that the geothermal activity commenced in the southern part of the field about 27,000 - 20,000 years ago and spread northwards, reaching the western part of the field last less than 4,900 years ago." Is "last" an extra word? Seems out of place.
"Feasibility studies in northern Chile identified El Tatio as a potential site for geothermal power generation, with large scale prospecting taking place in the 1960s and 1970s." Large-scale.
"In 1973 and 1974, wells were drilled and it was estimated that if the geothermal resources were fully exploited, about 100–400 megawatts electric power could be produced." 100–400 megawatts of electric power.
Looks like there have been substantial formatting changes since my review... would be good to have the new short footnotes be spaced normally, as the existing ones were. Alphabetization of Sources is off now as well. Some of the works missing ISSNs definitely have them, eg Geochemical Journal.
Nikkimaria (
talk)
01:19, 6 October 2021 (UTC)reply
If you look at the previous set of short cites, they all have spaces between authors and dates (and so are easier to scan), whereas the newer set have no spaces.
Nikkimaria (
talk)
00:36, 7 October 2021 (UTC)reply
Is El Tatio a "geyser field" or a "geothermal field with many geysers"? This way of presenting it would be ok if a "geothermal field" is a special case of a "geyser field", not so much the other way around.
El Tatio lies at the western foot of a series of stratovolcanoes, which run along the border between Chile and Bolivia. This series of volcanoes is I don't quite know what the "western foot" is. Also, shouldn't it be "the series runs"?
"Western foot" means that the field lies at the western base of the mountains. I am concerned that "the series" might sound like TV series or something.
Jo-Jo Eumerus (
talk)
15:53, 26 September 2021 (UTC)reply
Sorry, I was unclear in what I meant. I would prefer "series of stratovolcanoes, which runs" to "which run".
You could mention the mountain (you talk about it later). eswiki has "the grandfather who cries" as translation of "el tatio", but I can't comment on the reliability of their sources. —
Kusma (
talk)
21:05, 26 September 2021 (UTC)reply
all parts of the field are easily accessible walking? by road? with a wheelchair?
Good question. I did look for an official website or something and all I got was a rock. The Rough Guide and Lonely Planet could be used but I am not sure that they would qualify as "high-quality reliable sources".
Jo-Jo Eumerus (
talk)
15:53, 26 September 2021 (UTC)reply
"easily accessible" still doesn't work without context. While we're at this point, is
Siloli the same as
Silala River? (
es:Silala makes me think so).
From the source it seems like "on foot" is correct so that's in. Regarding Siloli, the source isn't clear if it's meant to be the river or a town of the same name, but the maps indicate that the places coincide, so that's in as well.
Jo-Jo Eumerus (
talk)
07:24, 27 September 2021 (UTC)reply
East of the field andesitic stratovolcanoes reach A comma would help to explain whether this is "east of the field andesitic, stratovolcanoes ..." or "east of the field, andesitic stratovolcanoes..." This is probably easier for those who know what "andesitic" means without clicking the link. Next sentence would also be easier to parse with a comma after "south".
the 4,570–4,690-metre Alto Ojo del Cablor: what do these numbers mean? Is the height variable or unknown? As we don't have a link for the mountain, maybe footnote?
Perhaps gloss it "Alto Ojo del Cablor range"? Also, some of this description would be much aided by a map. The one at
es:El Tatio isn't great, but helps me understand this better (and has the Copacoya). (BTW the only entries on a Wikipedia about many of these mountains seems to be the
Lsjbot articles, compare
ceb:Cerro Copacoya and
ceb:Alto Ojo de Cáblor. Not sure they are worth an {{ill}}).
I think including the map could be helpful. ILL: I meant that I'm not sure whether adding {{ill}}'s to the Cebuano bot articles is worth doing, but that's probably my anti-robot prejudice speaking. —
Kusma (
talk)
22:14, 27 September 2021 (UTC)reply
Risopatrón died in 1930, I can't find the dates for the other two mapmakers involved. Either way in the US they are public domain as the 1910 publication, corrected in 1913, is no longer copyrighted.
Jo-Jo Eumerus (
talk)
08:23, 29 September 2021 (UTC)reply
Hmm, yeah, and upon checking this would create problems for Commons. I've nominated the maps for deletion
here but since we only care about US copyrights on enwiki I think we could upload local copies and add them to the wiki here. What say you,
Nikkimaria?
Jo-Jo Eumerus (
talk)
09:01, 30 September 2021 (UTC)reply
Geothermal field: About 110 documented geothermal manifestations occur at El Tatio, and a total number of 400 has been estimated. This sentence seems a bit out of place here; doesn't this work much better together with the 67 geysers and 300 hot springs and their names? (Or am I misunderstanding something here?) It is odd that some of the names are in English.
I don't like the bulleted list of features much. The subsection "Geothermal field" is very long compared to others; any chance of splitting it?
I am kind of uneasy with the list too but I don't think that leaving them as paragraphs would be better; we are discussing them in list style after all. I don't think the section is too much longer nor that it could easily be split.
Jo-Jo Eumerus (
talk)
08:56, 28 September 2021 (UTC)reply
Do we need three examples of "geyser cone" with identical caption?
I think that, since we don't have many reliable sources that discuss the tourism aspects of what is after all a major tourist attraction, the images fill in some of that information. So I am tempted to say yes.
Jo-Jo Eumerus (
talk)
08:56, 28 September 2021 (UTC)reply
Geology section: first sentence kind of explains why this was called "central volcanic zone" a few sections up?
If you are asking why we need to discuss it twice, it's because here it's only as geological background while the details are discussed in the section before.
Jo-Jo Eumerus (
talk)
08:56, 28 September 2021 (UTC)reply
Hydrology: The water is precipitation originally, but no water from precipitation is mixed into it? This is confusing.
Three separate geothermal reservoirs sentence is a bit long and may suffer from a stray comma at the end. The names "A", "B", "C" do not seem to add much.
You could generally consider illustrating the part of the article between "Geology" and "Human exploitation" more. eswiki has a few plants and animals that could be in the Biology section, for example.
It does not have sources, however, and from searching I don't find any discussion on birds at El Tatio even though discussions of other waterbodies in the region (e.g
Laguna Miscanti) mention plenty of them. So I am not sure how much of this is applicable to El Tatio.
Jo-Jo Eumerus (
talk)
08:23, 29 September 2021 (UTC)reply
You could mention which of the microorganisms are considered to be the extremophiles mentioned in the lead.
The issue is that the lead promises extremophiles, and then ctrl-f extremo doesn't find them in the body if you are too lazy to actually read. —
Kusma (
talk)
15:23, 29 September 2021 (UTC)reply
Geological history: later this volcano was reinterpreted to be of Pleistocene age I'm a bit confused here. What was it previously interpreted at, who did the reinterpretation and why do you mention that it was reinterpreted?
The source does not go in much detail, but I know that many "Holocene" volcanoes in the central Andes were later reinterpreted as actually being of Pleistocene age. And even more recently of the opposite such as
Purupuruni and
Taapaca.
Jo-Jo Eumerus (
talk)
08:23, 29 September 2021 (UTC)reply
So, previous scholarly consensus was Holocene, now it is Pleistocene? Or do some scholars (who?) say the one thing, some the other? Or is the consensus Holocene, but some people now think it is Pleistocene? —
Kusma (
talk)
15:57, 29 September 2021 (UTC)reply
I don't know if I would call this a "consensus" as there is very little research done on these volcanoes but I think the first is the most appropriate interpretation.
Jo-Jo Eumerus (
talk)
16:40, 29 September 2021 (UTC)reply
Human exploitation: do we really need all the possible reported yields? It is curious that source 179 has two very different numbers.
Tourism: It seems likely that there is information from pre-2009 (what's the history of tourism in this area?) and from post-2010. eswiki has some discussion of security measures and accidents. There also has apparently been some back and forth in declaring it a zona de interés turístico nacional.
I couldn't find any good source on the tourism history, sorry. I'll see about whether
this has more information on tourism but I am kind of dubious about whether most of the eswiki article sources meet the "high-quality reliable source" criteria.
Jo-Jo Eumerus (
talk)
08:23, 29 September 2021 (UTC)reply
Am I correct to assume that most tourists stay in San Pedro de Atacama and take day trips to El Tatio?
Sources: It is not obvious which sources use {{sfn}} and which sources use references directly, and it looks messy. For some citations, like the frog reference 149, a page number would be nice, and moving it ti {{sfn}} would make that easier.
Overall, the article is thoroughly researched, especially the science parts, which are great if a bit technical. I think the tourism/administration/protection part looks short compared to the rest of the article, given that it seems to be a major tourist attraction. I'd love to have some more maps/schematics/illustrations to aid my understanding. If Zeil 1959 is really CC-BY as claimed, it might be possible to use/adapt the maps? (At least mention that there are useful maps in that reference?) I'd probably use more commas and/or try to use shorter sentences overall, but I'll leave discussing that to the native speakers. —
Kusma (
talk)
22:02, 28 September 2021 (UTC)reply
I'll see to get some images from the Zeil source. I'll check about expanding the non-technical aspects but I don't promise anything - it seems like much of the tourism information is on private websites and such and thus doesn't meet the "high-quality reliable source" criteria.
Jo-Jo Eumerus (
talk)
08:23, 29 September 2021 (UTC)reply
I think that map would be very helpful. For the tourism information, I don't think we need the same level of scholarly sources as for the other information. I tried to look for sources by G-searching site:gob.cl for "El Tatio", which gives some candidates, but then remembered that I don't actually know enough Spanish. (The Yellowstone FA does cite US government pages extensively). —
Kusma (
talk)
15:48, 29 September 2021 (UTC)reply
I'm fairly close to supporting now (especially if the Zeil map drawing goes in that is more clear about where the geysers are than the larger map), there's just a few layout/style issues: the bulleted list really doesn't fit in well with the rest, the images could be more evenly distributed in the article (and the two galleries behave differently on resizing, especially noticeable on wide screens). I'd prefer the APVC abbreviation to be introduced in the body instead of the lead, but that's minor and I won't insist on that. I'd still like more about tourism but I see your point about high quality sources. Thank you for switching to uniform {{sfn}}: it looks much cleaner now. —
Kusma (
talk)
16:37, 30 September 2021 (UTC)reply
Another choice for the maps would be to export a piece of the
OpenStreetMap display. I didn't manage to get <mapframe> to produce a similarly nice interactive map (test at my
sandbox has only roads and rivers), but perhaps there are some experts for
Wikipedia:Maplink who know what to do. —
Kusma (
talk)
16:47, 30 September 2021 (UTC)reply
It's just my opinion, but that OSM map is a little too bare bones for my liking. As I've noted below regarding Doctor Who, I think the bulleted list is better than some other presentations that could be done. I've tried something about the galleries, I think that moving the images around may even their distribution but would reduce their pertinence to the sections.
Jo-Jo Eumerus (
talk)
18:31, 30 September 2021 (UTC)reply
OpenStreetMap seems much better for human geography questions than for physical geography, I agree (and you already have the mapframe map at a different zoom level). The Zeil map doesn't look nearly as empty as the OSM one (mostly thanks to the contour lines). Either would be very useful in addition to the 1910 topographical map because they show the location and extent of the geyser field.
The bulleted list is kind of lacking a title telling us what is being listed, or an intro sentence ending in a colon. Without those, it just looks like you're suddenly changing from unbulleted paragraphs to bulleted paragraphs. (Compare examples at
MOS:LIST).
The larger images look much better for the second gallery, thanks. I think we disagree on our image placement preferences, but that's fine. You could consider linking
vicuña and
yareta in the captions. —
Kusma (
talk)
20:07, 30 September 2021 (UTC)reply
Knowing next to nothing about the topic, I found this article to be well-written with the links quite informative in explaining the geology. Most of my comments are minor.
Also, I'd like to note that I very much appreciate that there appeared to be an effort in this article to use a good number of accessible articles that didn't require a paywall to verify. (Though I didn't spot-check references, I clicked to a number to get more information about a point.)
Text around FN38 mentions Western Cordilla. This confused me, as Wikipedia articles point toward the North American Western Cordilla. Citation at FN38 mentions Eastern Cordilla drainage, but not Western.
Western Cordilla is unclear, so anything to disambiguate the term would be useful. At least the use of Spanish differentiates it from Western Cordilla in North America. And again, the reference mentions the Eastern drainage. Can these elements be brought into line?
Does sinster terrace need to be redlinked? Sinster is defined via a link, and a reader who looks up sinster the first time should be able to understand that a terrace is a terrace of sinster. If there are interesting and unusual aspects to sinster terraces that are notable and need to be explored, then maybe an article is needed?
I think it is an unnecessary redlink. My own feeling is that featured articles minimize redlinks to a handful of necessary terms , and when a term is missing defines it in context. (Seeing a highway redlinked was also odd, but maybe its worthy of a historical review?) but I'm just trying help out here and I can see there is already a lot work in the article.
No need to change anything with these. I just think too many redlinks just don't look good and leave the article with undefined terms. But it is clearly a matter of preference, so this is set.
First two sentences beginning Geothermal field are a bit odd. Would it help to break sentences thematically? Sentence 1) Well known thermal field? 2) Largest and highest (mention in altitude). The comparison with Yellowstone and Dolina Geizerov might be stronger reworded. "taller" initially seems synonymous with the previous sentences "higher", but higher is altitude, and "taller" could be incorporated into a dependent clause, as the "height" of geysers was not a topic in the previous two sentences. It's just a bit of additional information on Yellowstone and Dolina Geizerov.
Edited the section and then reverted. Take a look, to see what I'm saying. The comparison of size betwee El Tatio, Yellostone and Dolina Geizerov, should adjacent. Height of geyser is not a directly relevant comparison, so subordinated, the world "altitude" added to remove confusion of high and tall. No need to keep edits, just illustrating the point and hopefully making clear the issue.
Wtfiv (
talk)
23:59, 28 September 2021 (UTC)reply
Great! My main point for adding it was just to illustrate the issue I saw (very minor.) It's nice the edit will work.
There's a great many duplicate links that could be reduced: (e.g., fumoroles, glaciers, Lake Tauca, Altiplano-Puna Magma body, to just name a few.) (In pruning my own, I found this script you may want to consider using, which helps immensely: User:Evad37/duplinks-alt)
*::Does that mean that they're not going to be addressed or they will be addressed? My thought is that they should be cleaned up, as that's part of the featured article process. Looks like they are addressed.
In Geology: "recent" is linked to Holocene. Is there a non-awkward way to say "during the Holocene" rather than linking Holocene to recent? Again, I'll go either way, as I'm trying to just help shepherd the article to closure.
Thanks. I think the attempt to more precisely define what was intended by "recent" without relying on the link to do the work is helpful to the casual reader.
In Geology, the abbreviation APVC occurs without warning or definition. I saw in FN74 that it most likely stands for Altiplano-Puna Volcanic Complex, but this is not defined and the abbreviation is not forwarned (e.g., following full-name with abbreviation in parenthesis.) And Altiplano-Puna Volcanic Complex can be linked as well.
Now I see it. That's what I get for reading the article without the lead. Easy to miss as it pops up much later in the article, but it was defined early.
In human exploitation, would it be worthwhile to slightly expand on the incident that caused the geothermic project to stall (i.e., uncontrolled well discharge)? (Following up, I think this does need to be mentioned in more detail in the article- maybe just a sentence or an expansion with a dependent clause- as you mention it in the introduction of the Featured Article Review as part of the article's notability.)
Yes, I see it. Following in the next section. The section break conceptually separated them for me, a more casual reader. So I didn't connect the "incident" with the following description of the other incident I'm sure a more technical reader wouldn't make that error, and reference to 2009 links them too, though it could still be mistaken for two different incidents.
Thinking about this further, I think this would be just a bit clearer if the sentence It progressed until 2009, when an incident at the site along with environmental issues caused it to stall again. was slightly rewritten and integrated as the first sentence of the next subheading. The incident and its effect is, after all, the topic for this section. It's minor, but I think, helpful to the casual reader.
Wtfiv (
talk)
00:42, 29 September 2021 (UTC)reply
I've been wondering about the structure here myself. The sequence is first research->trial drillings->2009 accident->resulting controversy. The sentence you quote was meant to be a lead-over to the focus change. Perhaps cutting that sentence would be better?
Jo-Jo Eumerus (
talk)
08:23, 29 September 2021 (UTC)reply
I think cutting it may work, as the subheading functions as its own lead over. Again, its very minor, but if it snagged me, I'm sure a handful of others would be snagged for it. But if the subheading jumps right into the incident and its subsequent stalling of the geothermal incident, that strikes me as a bit cleaner.
The biggest issue I see is the citations. The article remains a hybrid of ⟨ref⟩ and sfn. I wouldn't make support for this article conditional on this consistency, as it is a lot of work to fix. But isn't such consistency in citation style on of the hallmarks of a featured article? Does it seem like an issue from your perspective?
Wtfiv (
talk)
17:18, 28 September 2021 (UTC)reply
I perhaps started off from a wrong premise, but back in the day I thought that this combination of sfn+ref was acceptable. Some of my more recent ones such as
Lake Estancia are now standardized on only one, however.
Jo-Jo Eumerus (
talk)
19:10, 28 September 2021 (UTC)reply
With respect to citation formatting, as I was under a different impression. During the citation spot check and image check, it seemed the FAR regulars did not address this issue, so it most likely it doesn't matter. But if we could, I'd like to get perhaps a word from one of people who monitor the FAR. Again, it's not something that stands or falls for me- I'm just trying to help out and beyond eventually give this article some support, as the responses make clear, there is really little of use I've had to offer except in terms of the misunderstandings a more casual reader may make. But perhaps this review can be useful for personal clarification: I thought a consistent citation style property of featured articles I thought was important- and one of the distinguishing characteristics of a GA from an FA. If not, that's good information to know. @
Gog the Mild:, I know you've been helping the articles here move forward toward successfully completing the FAR process, are there any trends or guidelines one way or the other on this? (As mentioned, I'm not going to lay any support conditions on this article based on your- or any FA regulars- input, I just want to know the general guidelines.)
Wtfiv (
talk)
19:50, 28 September 2021 (UTC)reply
I've been thinking further on this. I think
WP:CITE and
WP:CITEVAR are clear that a consistent reference system should be in an article. Definitely, this is not as enforced in GAs (thank goodness), but I think FAs should aim reflect these values. My purpose for jumping into this particular review was mainly to answer the call for reviewers to support the hard work done on this article and help it get to FA, but I think this consistency is an important aspect of an FA article. For me to effectively support the it and to help the article with a bit more FA polish, it needs the consistency. Since my original goal was to help, I can offer this: If it does not disrupt the committed editors to the article, I'll gladly collaborate with others with the editing required out getting the remaining ref items in this article into sfn format. If you rather leave the article as is, I more than understand. It's a lot of work.
Wtfiv (
talk)
08:18, 29 September 2021 (UTC)reply
Yeah, the main problem I see with changing the citation format from ref to sfn is that it'd be a lot of work. If someone wants to do it anyway, they can I think.
Jo-Jo Eumerus (
talk)
15:44, 29 September 2021 (UTC)reply
@
Gog the Mild: Thank you for replying. Last thing I want to do is hold up an article due to a personal preference, but I do want to help it meet FA criteria. @
Jo-Jo Eumerus: Where are you with the citations? Do you want some help making them consistent, or do you think you'll be able to get them done on your own?
Wtfiv (
talk)
15:55, 29 September 2021 (UTC)reply
@
Jo-Jo Eumerus: Just checked in to see if I need to help, but its done and it looks great! Just the consistent formatting gives it that FA aura! I put "support" up in the header of this section.
It's a good serendipity, as it allows the casual reader some opportunity to not take all the citations on faith alone. I certainly appreciated it when I could actually look at the citations to verify and understand.
Support from Femke
I'm leaning support, a few comments. Happy to see only few midsentence cites, and illustrations are beautiful. I'm editing from phone, so made prose suggestions directly. More to come.
FemkeMilene (
talk)
11:19, 29 September 2021 (UTC)reply
I've condensed some sentences for ease. Keep an eye out for more sentences that can be simplified.
Per
MOS:CONVERSIONS, it is not necessary to convert standard units to US units in purely scientific context. It clutters up the prose. As far as I'm aware, power production is never given in horsepower and irradiation never per square feet.
The article is full of Spanish words. If their pronunciations in English is meant to follow Spanish, use the lang template to help screen readers.
FemkeMilene (
talk)
11:28, 29 September 2021 (UTC)reply
Currently, everything is pronounced in English, so Taytio. I'm would guess the a in Tatio should rather be pronounced as the a in Chicago, not as in the a of the alphabet. If you wrap it in the lang template, the pronunciation would be Spanish. I do always underestimate how much English native speakers anglify pronunciation. Maybe a native speaker can enlighten us.
FemkeMilene (
talk)
15:09, 29 September 2021 (UTC)reply
The presence of microorganisms in sinter has been implicated in their tolerance to UV radiation, as sinter absorbs much of this incoming harmful radiation I don't understand this sentence.
FemkeMilene (
talk)
11:41, 29 September 2021 (UTC)reply
Doesn't quite make sense to me; the microorganism are protected against UV by sinter, but have nonetheless built up their own tolerance against it?
FemkeMilene (
talk)
16:46, 29 September 2021 (UTC)reply
My understanding of the source (only read page 26), is that it's only about physical protection from sinter, not about tolerance from the microorganisms. I've reworded, do you agree?
FemkeMilene (
talk)
08:16, 30 September 2021 (UTC)reply
The section Human exploitation is only about geothermal. Arguably, tourism is also exploitation. You could rename to Geothermal potential, or geothermal energy potential.
Only the fields at Yellowstone in the United States and Dolina Geizerov, which also have taller geysers than at El Tatio,[43] where geyser fountains are on average only 75 centimetres (30 in) high,[44] are larger.[45] -> sentence needs to be split in two. Not quite clear that 75 cm refers to El Tatio, and the words "are larger" are too far away from the word "Geizerov".
About 110 documented geothermal manifestations occur at El Tatio, and a total number of 400 has been estimated. -> About 110 geothermal manifestations have been documented at El Tatio, but the total has been estimated at 400, seems to flow better.
Sinter is mentioned quite often. Per
WP:EXPLAINLEAD, could you add something like (mineral deposit with small cavities) after the first mention. Or something more accurate. I also do not know the word ignimbrite, but it seems less important. Maybe omit in the lede?
Also in 1974 a desalination facility was built at El Tatio and can still be seen there today -> rm "and can still be seen there today" or find a newer source. A lot can happen in 18 years.
during the Tatio controversy power generation[192] and relations between the Chilean government and native communities also gained prominence among the disputed issues -> I believe the and after 192 should be removed. the word also also not necessary.
and the tourism industry of the region had been opposed to the project for a while -> Not quite clear if this is El Tatio's tourism industry of NZ/US. If the former, the phrase can be omitted, because it's already stated differently before. In the later cases, clarify.
FemkeMilene (
talk)
08:55, 30 September 2021 (UTC)reply
I'll support. I think the remaining open comment should be dealt with more generally, and it would be unfair to withhold a support for this we'll-researched article.
FemkeMilene (
talk)
12:37, 5 October 2021 (UTC)reply
Comments Support from TheDoctorWho
I'm a little concerned about the bullet list, I see it was mentioned above; however,
MOS:BULLETLIST states that "Bullets are used to discern, at a glance, the individual items in a list, usually when each item in the list is a simple word, phrase or single line of text, [...]. They are not appropriate for large paragraphs." which is what it is being used for here. As that guideline states there are always exceptions but I'm not sure that this necessarily is one.
Chile Route B-245 has been a
red link for
over two years now. I'm not knowledgeable enough on Chile Route's to know if this particular route is "notable and verifiable" but if its not it should [probably] be removed.
Scrolling through the rest of the article there's actually quite a few red links so same goes for any of those, unless their particularly notable or they're going to be created soon they should all be removed.
See, I am pretty sure that all of these redlinks can have articles created for them. I don't think we remove redlinks just because the article doesn't exist yet.
Jo-Jo Eumerus (
talk)
16:17, 30 September 2021 (UTC)reply
WP:REDLINK specifically says that unless the subjects article is likely to be created soon OR unless its notable and verifiable to remove them. This isn't particularly a deal breaker for me, I'm just wanting your opinion on whether or not they meet those requirements.
TheDoctorWho(talk)16:40, 30 September 2021 (UTC)reply
I think they all meet the "notable and verifiable", myself. Granted, being busy with other projects I don't intend to do a lot of work with these redlinks, but still.
Jo-Jo Eumerus (
talk)
16:42, 30 September 2021 (UTC)reply
In that case they're fine, just to clear up my comments you're not obligated to work on any of the red links if you don't want to, I was just trying to make sure the article followed appropriate guidelines, which according to you, they do.
TheDoctorWho(talk)18:16, 30 September 2021 (UTC)reply
This article is about the highest geothermal area in the world, and the largest of the Southern Hemisphere with over 100 geothermal manifestations such as
geysers. It is today mainly a tourism destination, and also a research object for scientists analyzing microbial life in extreme habitats comparable to
Mars. In the past it was also prospected for
geothermal power generation but a major incident in 2009, which had major implications both for regional geothermal power politics and natives-government relations, has probably terminated this prospecting.
Jo-Jo Eumerus (
talk)
14:39, 29 August 2021 (UTC)reply
Image review
Is there a reason to {{clear}} Climate and biology, rather than just moving the image up?
"The vents are sites of populations of
extremophile microorganisms and have been studied as analogs for the
early Earth and possible past
life on Mars." implies that there were/are similar vents on Mars - if that is right could you say a bit more in the body - if wrong suggest splitting into 2 sentences to clarify
"As of 2010[update], about 10.9
gigawatt geothermal energy are produced on Earth, not all of it linked to active volcanism." could be deleted unless you are comparing it with the potential of this field in which case it should be updated and might be better to be put closer to the potential for this field.
While this has passed the important image review the nomination has been open for over three weeks and is showing little sign of gaining a consensus to support. Unless there is a significant change in this over the next two or three days, I am afraid that it is liable to be archived.
Gog the Mild (
talk)
19:28, 19 September 2021 (UTC)reply
@
Gog the Mild: The internet for my PC has been out for two days and I was busy prior to that so I haven't been able to take a good look at this article. I will try to review it in a bit. Volcanoguy15:25, 20 September 2021 (UTC)reply
I just got back to a stable place where I can usefully help out. Like
Kusma, I'm not sure how much I can contribute in terms of the topic. But I'll certainly try and review to the best of my abilities in the next couple of days.
Wtfiv (
talk)
07:16, 28 September 2021 (UTC)reply
Support from Volcanoguy
Geomorphology and geography
"The field is located 89 kilometres (55 mi)-80 kilometres (50 mi) north". Should probably use 80–89 kilometres (50–55 mi).
"From north to south the andesitic stratovolcanoes include the 5,651-metre 18,540 ft)[20][7][21] or 5,696 metres (18,688 ft) high". 5,696 metres should be 5,696-metre. Also citation error.
"and the 5,314-metre (17,434 ft) high Volcan Tatio, and they collectively form the El Tatio volcanic group.[20][7][21][b]" should be "and the 5,314-metre (17,434 ft) high Volcan Tatio, which collectively form the El Tatio volcanic group." Also citation error.
"and is characterized by fumaroles, hot springs, steam vents known as soffioni and steaming soil" would read better as "and is characterized by fumaroles, hot springs, steam vents and steaming soil" with "steam vents" piped to the soffioni article.
"Stronger geothermal activity is located within three discrete areas covering a total of 10 square kilometres (3.9 sq mi) surface, and includes boiling water fountains, hot springs, geysers, mudpots, mud volcanoes and sinter terraces;[47][13]" Citation error.
"Many vents are linked to fractures that run northwest-southeast or southwest-northeast across the field." En dashes.
"Geysers and also water fountains discharge from up to 3-metre (9.8 ft) high cones[70][66]" Citation error.
"The activity of geysers is not stable over time, changes in water supply or in the properties of the conduit that supplies them can cause changes in their eruptive activity." A semicolon would probably be better than a comma.
"The region was dominated by andesitic volcanism producing lava flows until the late Miocene, then large scale ignimbrite activity took place between 10 and 1 million years ago." Large-scale.
"The APVC is underpinned by a large magma chamber with the shape of a sill, the Altiplano-Puna Magma Body; a number of volcanoes and geothermal system including El Tatio are geographically associated with the Altiplano-Puna Magma Body." Geothermal systems.
"The terrain at El Tatio is formed by Jurassic–Cretaceous sediments of marine and volcanic origin, Tertiary–Holocene volcanic formations that were emplaced in various episodes, and recent sediments formed by glaciers, alluvium, colluvium and material formed by the geothermal field, such as sinter.[78][21]" Citation error.
"Hydrothermal alteration of country rock has occurred at El Tatio, it has yielded large deposits of alteration minerals such as illite, nobleite, smectite, teruggite and ulexite." would probably read better as "Hydrothermal alteration of country rock at El Tatio has yielded large deposits of alteration minerals such as illite, nobleite, smectite, teruggite and ulexite."
"The summit parts of several volcanoes of the El Tatio volcanic group have been bleached and discoloured by hydrothermal activity." I would reword this to "The summits of several volcanoes comprising the El Tatio volcanic group have been bleached and discoloured by hydrothermal activity."
"The source of heat of the whole complex appears to be the Laguna Colorada caldera,[84][21][85] the El Tatio volcanic group,[41][47] the Cerro Guacha and Pastos Grandes calderas[86][15] or the Altiplano-Puna Magma Body.[87]" Citation errors.
"The water travels through a number of aquifers that correspond to permeable rock formations, such as the Salado and Puripicar ignimbrites,[92][90] as well as through faults and fractures in the rock." Citation error.
"Arsenic concentrations in waters at El Tatio can reach 40 milligrams per litre (2.3×10−5 oz/cu in)[99]-50 milligrams per litre (2.9×10−5 oz/cu in)". I would use 40–50 milligrams per litre (2.3×10−5–2.9×10−5 oz/cu in).
"Carbon dioxide is the most important fumarole gas, followed by hydrogen sulfide.[107][85][53]" Citation errors.
Composition of spring deposits
"Volcanic rock fragments such as plagioclase and quartz are found within cavities of the sinter." Plagioclase and quartz are minerals, not rock fragments.
"Biofilms and microbial mats are omnipresent at El Tatio,[133] including Calothrix,[70][65] Leptolyngbya,[134] Lyngbya and Phormidium[e] cyanobacteria, which form mats within the hot springs covering the solid surfaces, including oncoids and the sinter.[70][65]" Citation errors.
Geological history
"The intersection between northwest-southeast trending and northnorthwest-southsoutheast-trending lineaments at El Tatio has been correlated with the occurrence of geothermal activity." Northwest–southwest trending, north-northwest–south-southeast trending.
"This strong ignimbrite volcanism is associated with activity of the Altiplano–Puna volcanic complex, which has produced dacite dominated large volume ignimbrites and sizable calderas, starting from the middle Miocene." I would reword this to "This strong ignimbrite volcanism is associated with activity of the Altiplano–Puna volcanic complex, which has produced large volume dacite ignimbrites and sizable calderas, starting from the middle Miocene."
"Petrological data suggest that over time the erupted lavas of the El Tatio volcanic group have become more mafic, with older products being andesitic and later ones basaltic-andesitic." Is this implying the later lavas are both basaltic and andesitic or is it referring to
basaltic andesite?
"There is no recorded historical volcanism in the El Tatio area[47] and volcanism has not directly affected it since about 27,000 years." I'm thinking "for about 27,000 years" might be better wording.
"Research published in 2020 suggests that the geothermal activity commenced in the southern part of the field about 27,000 - 20,000 years ago and spread northwards, reaching the western part of the field last less than 4,900 years ago." Is "last" an extra word? Seems out of place.
"Feasibility studies in northern Chile identified El Tatio as a potential site for geothermal power generation, with large scale prospecting taking place in the 1960s and 1970s." Large-scale.
"In 1973 and 1974, wells were drilled and it was estimated that if the geothermal resources were fully exploited, about 100–400 megawatts electric power could be produced." 100–400 megawatts of electric power.
Looks like there have been substantial formatting changes since my review... would be good to have the new short footnotes be spaced normally, as the existing ones were. Alphabetization of Sources is off now as well. Some of the works missing ISSNs definitely have them, eg Geochemical Journal.
Nikkimaria (
talk)
01:19, 6 October 2021 (UTC)reply
If you look at the previous set of short cites, they all have spaces between authors and dates (and so are easier to scan), whereas the newer set have no spaces.
Nikkimaria (
talk)
00:36, 7 October 2021 (UTC)reply
Is El Tatio a "geyser field" or a "geothermal field with many geysers"? This way of presenting it would be ok if a "geothermal field" is a special case of a "geyser field", not so much the other way around.
El Tatio lies at the western foot of a series of stratovolcanoes, which run along the border between Chile and Bolivia. This series of volcanoes is I don't quite know what the "western foot" is. Also, shouldn't it be "the series runs"?
"Western foot" means that the field lies at the western base of the mountains. I am concerned that "the series" might sound like TV series or something.
Jo-Jo Eumerus (
talk)
15:53, 26 September 2021 (UTC)reply
Sorry, I was unclear in what I meant. I would prefer "series of stratovolcanoes, which runs" to "which run".
You could mention the mountain (you talk about it later). eswiki has "the grandfather who cries" as translation of "el tatio", but I can't comment on the reliability of their sources. —
Kusma (
talk)
21:05, 26 September 2021 (UTC)reply
all parts of the field are easily accessible walking? by road? with a wheelchair?
Good question. I did look for an official website or something and all I got was a rock. The Rough Guide and Lonely Planet could be used but I am not sure that they would qualify as "high-quality reliable sources".
Jo-Jo Eumerus (
talk)
15:53, 26 September 2021 (UTC)reply
"easily accessible" still doesn't work without context. While we're at this point, is
Siloli the same as
Silala River? (
es:Silala makes me think so).
From the source it seems like "on foot" is correct so that's in. Regarding Siloli, the source isn't clear if it's meant to be the river or a town of the same name, but the maps indicate that the places coincide, so that's in as well.
Jo-Jo Eumerus (
talk)
07:24, 27 September 2021 (UTC)reply
East of the field andesitic stratovolcanoes reach A comma would help to explain whether this is "east of the field andesitic, stratovolcanoes ..." or "east of the field, andesitic stratovolcanoes..." This is probably easier for those who know what "andesitic" means without clicking the link. Next sentence would also be easier to parse with a comma after "south".
the 4,570–4,690-metre Alto Ojo del Cablor: what do these numbers mean? Is the height variable or unknown? As we don't have a link for the mountain, maybe footnote?
Perhaps gloss it "Alto Ojo del Cablor range"? Also, some of this description would be much aided by a map. The one at
es:El Tatio isn't great, but helps me understand this better (and has the Copacoya). (BTW the only entries on a Wikipedia about many of these mountains seems to be the
Lsjbot articles, compare
ceb:Cerro Copacoya and
ceb:Alto Ojo de Cáblor. Not sure they are worth an {{ill}}).
I think including the map could be helpful. ILL: I meant that I'm not sure whether adding {{ill}}'s to the Cebuano bot articles is worth doing, but that's probably my anti-robot prejudice speaking. —
Kusma (
talk)
22:14, 27 September 2021 (UTC)reply
Risopatrón died in 1930, I can't find the dates for the other two mapmakers involved. Either way in the US they are public domain as the 1910 publication, corrected in 1913, is no longer copyrighted.
Jo-Jo Eumerus (
talk)
08:23, 29 September 2021 (UTC)reply
Hmm, yeah, and upon checking this would create problems for Commons. I've nominated the maps for deletion
here but since we only care about US copyrights on enwiki I think we could upload local copies and add them to the wiki here. What say you,
Nikkimaria?
Jo-Jo Eumerus (
talk)
09:01, 30 September 2021 (UTC)reply
Geothermal field: About 110 documented geothermal manifestations occur at El Tatio, and a total number of 400 has been estimated. This sentence seems a bit out of place here; doesn't this work much better together with the 67 geysers and 300 hot springs and their names? (Or am I misunderstanding something here?) It is odd that some of the names are in English.
I don't like the bulleted list of features much. The subsection "Geothermal field" is very long compared to others; any chance of splitting it?
I am kind of uneasy with the list too but I don't think that leaving them as paragraphs would be better; we are discussing them in list style after all. I don't think the section is too much longer nor that it could easily be split.
Jo-Jo Eumerus (
talk)
08:56, 28 September 2021 (UTC)reply
Do we need three examples of "geyser cone" with identical caption?
I think that, since we don't have many reliable sources that discuss the tourism aspects of what is after all a major tourist attraction, the images fill in some of that information. So I am tempted to say yes.
Jo-Jo Eumerus (
talk)
08:56, 28 September 2021 (UTC)reply
Geology section: first sentence kind of explains why this was called "central volcanic zone" a few sections up?
If you are asking why we need to discuss it twice, it's because here it's only as geological background while the details are discussed in the section before.
Jo-Jo Eumerus (
talk)
08:56, 28 September 2021 (UTC)reply
Hydrology: The water is precipitation originally, but no water from precipitation is mixed into it? This is confusing.
Three separate geothermal reservoirs sentence is a bit long and may suffer from a stray comma at the end. The names "A", "B", "C" do not seem to add much.
You could generally consider illustrating the part of the article between "Geology" and "Human exploitation" more. eswiki has a few plants and animals that could be in the Biology section, for example.
It does not have sources, however, and from searching I don't find any discussion on birds at El Tatio even though discussions of other waterbodies in the region (e.g
Laguna Miscanti) mention plenty of them. So I am not sure how much of this is applicable to El Tatio.
Jo-Jo Eumerus (
talk)
08:23, 29 September 2021 (UTC)reply
You could mention which of the microorganisms are considered to be the extremophiles mentioned in the lead.
The issue is that the lead promises extremophiles, and then ctrl-f extremo doesn't find them in the body if you are too lazy to actually read. —
Kusma (
talk)
15:23, 29 September 2021 (UTC)reply
Geological history: later this volcano was reinterpreted to be of Pleistocene age I'm a bit confused here. What was it previously interpreted at, who did the reinterpretation and why do you mention that it was reinterpreted?
The source does not go in much detail, but I know that many "Holocene" volcanoes in the central Andes were later reinterpreted as actually being of Pleistocene age. And even more recently of the opposite such as
Purupuruni and
Taapaca.
Jo-Jo Eumerus (
talk)
08:23, 29 September 2021 (UTC)reply
So, previous scholarly consensus was Holocene, now it is Pleistocene? Or do some scholars (who?) say the one thing, some the other? Or is the consensus Holocene, but some people now think it is Pleistocene? —
Kusma (
talk)
15:57, 29 September 2021 (UTC)reply
I don't know if I would call this a "consensus" as there is very little research done on these volcanoes but I think the first is the most appropriate interpretation.
Jo-Jo Eumerus (
talk)
16:40, 29 September 2021 (UTC)reply
Human exploitation: do we really need all the possible reported yields? It is curious that source 179 has two very different numbers.
Tourism: It seems likely that there is information from pre-2009 (what's the history of tourism in this area?) and from post-2010. eswiki has some discussion of security measures and accidents. There also has apparently been some back and forth in declaring it a zona de interés turístico nacional.
I couldn't find any good source on the tourism history, sorry. I'll see about whether
this has more information on tourism but I am kind of dubious about whether most of the eswiki article sources meet the "high-quality reliable source" criteria.
Jo-Jo Eumerus (
talk)
08:23, 29 September 2021 (UTC)reply
Am I correct to assume that most tourists stay in San Pedro de Atacama and take day trips to El Tatio?
Sources: It is not obvious which sources use {{sfn}} and which sources use references directly, and it looks messy. For some citations, like the frog reference 149, a page number would be nice, and moving it ti {{sfn}} would make that easier.
Overall, the article is thoroughly researched, especially the science parts, which are great if a bit technical. I think the tourism/administration/protection part looks short compared to the rest of the article, given that it seems to be a major tourist attraction. I'd love to have some more maps/schematics/illustrations to aid my understanding. If Zeil 1959 is really CC-BY as claimed, it might be possible to use/adapt the maps? (At least mention that there are useful maps in that reference?) I'd probably use more commas and/or try to use shorter sentences overall, but I'll leave discussing that to the native speakers. —
Kusma (
talk)
22:02, 28 September 2021 (UTC)reply
I'll see to get some images from the Zeil source. I'll check about expanding the non-technical aspects but I don't promise anything - it seems like much of the tourism information is on private websites and such and thus doesn't meet the "high-quality reliable source" criteria.
Jo-Jo Eumerus (
talk)
08:23, 29 September 2021 (UTC)reply
I think that map would be very helpful. For the tourism information, I don't think we need the same level of scholarly sources as for the other information. I tried to look for sources by G-searching site:gob.cl for "El Tatio", which gives some candidates, but then remembered that I don't actually know enough Spanish. (The Yellowstone FA does cite US government pages extensively). —
Kusma (
talk)
15:48, 29 September 2021 (UTC)reply
I'm fairly close to supporting now (especially if the Zeil map drawing goes in that is more clear about where the geysers are than the larger map), there's just a few layout/style issues: the bulleted list really doesn't fit in well with the rest, the images could be more evenly distributed in the article (and the two galleries behave differently on resizing, especially noticeable on wide screens). I'd prefer the APVC abbreviation to be introduced in the body instead of the lead, but that's minor and I won't insist on that. I'd still like more about tourism but I see your point about high quality sources. Thank you for switching to uniform {{sfn}}: it looks much cleaner now. —
Kusma (
talk)
16:37, 30 September 2021 (UTC)reply
Another choice for the maps would be to export a piece of the
OpenStreetMap display. I didn't manage to get <mapframe> to produce a similarly nice interactive map (test at my
sandbox has only roads and rivers), but perhaps there are some experts for
Wikipedia:Maplink who know what to do. —
Kusma (
talk)
16:47, 30 September 2021 (UTC)reply
It's just my opinion, but that OSM map is a little too bare bones for my liking. As I've noted below regarding Doctor Who, I think the bulleted list is better than some other presentations that could be done. I've tried something about the galleries, I think that moving the images around may even their distribution but would reduce their pertinence to the sections.
Jo-Jo Eumerus (
talk)
18:31, 30 September 2021 (UTC)reply
OpenStreetMap seems much better for human geography questions than for physical geography, I agree (and you already have the mapframe map at a different zoom level). The Zeil map doesn't look nearly as empty as the OSM one (mostly thanks to the contour lines). Either would be very useful in addition to the 1910 topographical map because they show the location and extent of the geyser field.
The bulleted list is kind of lacking a title telling us what is being listed, or an intro sentence ending in a colon. Without those, it just looks like you're suddenly changing from unbulleted paragraphs to bulleted paragraphs. (Compare examples at
MOS:LIST).
The larger images look much better for the second gallery, thanks. I think we disagree on our image placement preferences, but that's fine. You could consider linking
vicuña and
yareta in the captions. —
Kusma (
talk)
20:07, 30 September 2021 (UTC)reply
Knowing next to nothing about the topic, I found this article to be well-written with the links quite informative in explaining the geology. Most of my comments are minor.
Also, I'd like to note that I very much appreciate that there appeared to be an effort in this article to use a good number of accessible articles that didn't require a paywall to verify. (Though I didn't spot-check references, I clicked to a number to get more information about a point.)
Text around FN38 mentions Western Cordilla. This confused me, as Wikipedia articles point toward the North American Western Cordilla. Citation at FN38 mentions Eastern Cordilla drainage, but not Western.
Western Cordilla is unclear, so anything to disambiguate the term would be useful. At least the use of Spanish differentiates it from Western Cordilla in North America. And again, the reference mentions the Eastern drainage. Can these elements be brought into line?
Does sinster terrace need to be redlinked? Sinster is defined via a link, and a reader who looks up sinster the first time should be able to understand that a terrace is a terrace of sinster. If there are interesting and unusual aspects to sinster terraces that are notable and need to be explored, then maybe an article is needed?
I think it is an unnecessary redlink. My own feeling is that featured articles minimize redlinks to a handful of necessary terms , and when a term is missing defines it in context. (Seeing a highway redlinked was also odd, but maybe its worthy of a historical review?) but I'm just trying help out here and I can see there is already a lot work in the article.
No need to change anything with these. I just think too many redlinks just don't look good and leave the article with undefined terms. But it is clearly a matter of preference, so this is set.
First two sentences beginning Geothermal field are a bit odd. Would it help to break sentences thematically? Sentence 1) Well known thermal field? 2) Largest and highest (mention in altitude). The comparison with Yellowstone and Dolina Geizerov might be stronger reworded. "taller" initially seems synonymous with the previous sentences "higher", but higher is altitude, and "taller" could be incorporated into a dependent clause, as the "height" of geysers was not a topic in the previous two sentences. It's just a bit of additional information on Yellowstone and Dolina Geizerov.
Edited the section and then reverted. Take a look, to see what I'm saying. The comparison of size betwee El Tatio, Yellostone and Dolina Geizerov, should adjacent. Height of geyser is not a directly relevant comparison, so subordinated, the world "altitude" added to remove confusion of high and tall. No need to keep edits, just illustrating the point and hopefully making clear the issue.
Wtfiv (
talk)
23:59, 28 September 2021 (UTC)reply
Great! My main point for adding it was just to illustrate the issue I saw (very minor.) It's nice the edit will work.
There's a great many duplicate links that could be reduced: (e.g., fumoroles, glaciers, Lake Tauca, Altiplano-Puna Magma body, to just name a few.) (In pruning my own, I found this script you may want to consider using, which helps immensely: User:Evad37/duplinks-alt)
*::Does that mean that they're not going to be addressed or they will be addressed? My thought is that they should be cleaned up, as that's part of the featured article process. Looks like they are addressed.
In Geology: "recent" is linked to Holocene. Is there a non-awkward way to say "during the Holocene" rather than linking Holocene to recent? Again, I'll go either way, as I'm trying to just help shepherd the article to closure.
Thanks. I think the attempt to more precisely define what was intended by "recent" without relying on the link to do the work is helpful to the casual reader.
In Geology, the abbreviation APVC occurs without warning or definition. I saw in FN74 that it most likely stands for Altiplano-Puna Volcanic Complex, but this is not defined and the abbreviation is not forwarned (e.g., following full-name with abbreviation in parenthesis.) And Altiplano-Puna Volcanic Complex can be linked as well.
Now I see it. That's what I get for reading the article without the lead. Easy to miss as it pops up much later in the article, but it was defined early.
In human exploitation, would it be worthwhile to slightly expand on the incident that caused the geothermic project to stall (i.e., uncontrolled well discharge)? (Following up, I think this does need to be mentioned in more detail in the article- maybe just a sentence or an expansion with a dependent clause- as you mention it in the introduction of the Featured Article Review as part of the article's notability.)
Yes, I see it. Following in the next section. The section break conceptually separated them for me, a more casual reader. So I didn't connect the "incident" with the following description of the other incident I'm sure a more technical reader wouldn't make that error, and reference to 2009 links them too, though it could still be mistaken for two different incidents.
Thinking about this further, I think this would be just a bit clearer if the sentence It progressed until 2009, when an incident at the site along with environmental issues caused it to stall again. was slightly rewritten and integrated as the first sentence of the next subheading. The incident and its effect is, after all, the topic for this section. It's minor, but I think, helpful to the casual reader.
Wtfiv (
talk)
00:42, 29 September 2021 (UTC)reply
I've been wondering about the structure here myself. The sequence is first research->trial drillings->2009 accident->resulting controversy. The sentence you quote was meant to be a lead-over to the focus change. Perhaps cutting that sentence would be better?
Jo-Jo Eumerus (
talk)
08:23, 29 September 2021 (UTC)reply
I think cutting it may work, as the subheading functions as its own lead over. Again, its very minor, but if it snagged me, I'm sure a handful of others would be snagged for it. But if the subheading jumps right into the incident and its subsequent stalling of the geothermal incident, that strikes me as a bit cleaner.
The biggest issue I see is the citations. The article remains a hybrid of ⟨ref⟩ and sfn. I wouldn't make support for this article conditional on this consistency, as it is a lot of work to fix. But isn't such consistency in citation style on of the hallmarks of a featured article? Does it seem like an issue from your perspective?
Wtfiv (
talk)
17:18, 28 September 2021 (UTC)reply
I perhaps started off from a wrong premise, but back in the day I thought that this combination of sfn+ref was acceptable. Some of my more recent ones such as
Lake Estancia are now standardized on only one, however.
Jo-Jo Eumerus (
talk)
19:10, 28 September 2021 (UTC)reply
With respect to citation formatting, as I was under a different impression. During the citation spot check and image check, it seemed the FAR regulars did not address this issue, so it most likely it doesn't matter. But if we could, I'd like to get perhaps a word from one of people who monitor the FAR. Again, it's not something that stands or falls for me- I'm just trying to help out and beyond eventually give this article some support, as the responses make clear, there is really little of use I've had to offer except in terms of the misunderstandings a more casual reader may make. But perhaps this review can be useful for personal clarification: I thought a consistent citation style property of featured articles I thought was important- and one of the distinguishing characteristics of a GA from an FA. If not, that's good information to know. @
Gog the Mild:, I know you've been helping the articles here move forward toward successfully completing the FAR process, are there any trends or guidelines one way or the other on this? (As mentioned, I'm not going to lay any support conditions on this article based on your- or any FA regulars- input, I just want to know the general guidelines.)
Wtfiv (
talk)
19:50, 28 September 2021 (UTC)reply
I've been thinking further on this. I think
WP:CITE and
WP:CITEVAR are clear that a consistent reference system should be in an article. Definitely, this is not as enforced in GAs (thank goodness), but I think FAs should aim reflect these values. My purpose for jumping into this particular review was mainly to answer the call for reviewers to support the hard work done on this article and help it get to FA, but I think this consistency is an important aspect of an FA article. For me to effectively support the it and to help the article with a bit more FA polish, it needs the consistency. Since my original goal was to help, I can offer this: If it does not disrupt the committed editors to the article, I'll gladly collaborate with others with the editing required out getting the remaining ref items in this article into sfn format. If you rather leave the article as is, I more than understand. It's a lot of work.
Wtfiv (
talk)
08:18, 29 September 2021 (UTC)reply
Yeah, the main problem I see with changing the citation format from ref to sfn is that it'd be a lot of work. If someone wants to do it anyway, they can I think.
Jo-Jo Eumerus (
talk)
15:44, 29 September 2021 (UTC)reply
@
Gog the Mild: Thank you for replying. Last thing I want to do is hold up an article due to a personal preference, but I do want to help it meet FA criteria. @
Jo-Jo Eumerus: Where are you with the citations? Do you want some help making them consistent, or do you think you'll be able to get them done on your own?
Wtfiv (
talk)
15:55, 29 September 2021 (UTC)reply
@
Jo-Jo Eumerus: Just checked in to see if I need to help, but its done and it looks great! Just the consistent formatting gives it that FA aura! I put "support" up in the header of this section.
It's a good serendipity, as it allows the casual reader some opportunity to not take all the citations on faith alone. I certainly appreciated it when I could actually look at the citations to verify and understand.
Support from Femke
I'm leaning support, a few comments. Happy to see only few midsentence cites, and illustrations are beautiful. I'm editing from phone, so made prose suggestions directly. More to come.
FemkeMilene (
talk)
11:19, 29 September 2021 (UTC)reply
I've condensed some sentences for ease. Keep an eye out for more sentences that can be simplified.
Per
MOS:CONVERSIONS, it is not necessary to convert standard units to US units in purely scientific context. It clutters up the prose. As far as I'm aware, power production is never given in horsepower and irradiation never per square feet.
The article is full of Spanish words. If their pronunciations in English is meant to follow Spanish, use the lang template to help screen readers.
FemkeMilene (
talk)
11:28, 29 September 2021 (UTC)reply
Currently, everything is pronounced in English, so Taytio. I'm would guess the a in Tatio should rather be pronounced as the a in Chicago, not as in the a of the alphabet. If you wrap it in the lang template, the pronunciation would be Spanish. I do always underestimate how much English native speakers anglify pronunciation. Maybe a native speaker can enlighten us.
FemkeMilene (
talk)
15:09, 29 September 2021 (UTC)reply
The presence of microorganisms in sinter has been implicated in their tolerance to UV radiation, as sinter absorbs much of this incoming harmful radiation I don't understand this sentence.
FemkeMilene (
talk)
11:41, 29 September 2021 (UTC)reply
Doesn't quite make sense to me; the microorganism are protected against UV by sinter, but have nonetheless built up their own tolerance against it?
FemkeMilene (
talk)
16:46, 29 September 2021 (UTC)reply
My understanding of the source (only read page 26), is that it's only about physical protection from sinter, not about tolerance from the microorganisms. I've reworded, do you agree?
FemkeMilene (
talk)
08:16, 30 September 2021 (UTC)reply
The section Human exploitation is only about geothermal. Arguably, tourism is also exploitation. You could rename to Geothermal potential, or geothermal energy potential.
Only the fields at Yellowstone in the United States and Dolina Geizerov, which also have taller geysers than at El Tatio,[43] where geyser fountains are on average only 75 centimetres (30 in) high,[44] are larger.[45] -> sentence needs to be split in two. Not quite clear that 75 cm refers to El Tatio, and the words "are larger" are too far away from the word "Geizerov".
About 110 documented geothermal manifestations occur at El Tatio, and a total number of 400 has been estimated. -> About 110 geothermal manifestations have been documented at El Tatio, but the total has been estimated at 400, seems to flow better.
Sinter is mentioned quite often. Per
WP:EXPLAINLEAD, could you add something like (mineral deposit with small cavities) after the first mention. Or something more accurate. I also do not know the word ignimbrite, but it seems less important. Maybe omit in the lede?
Also in 1974 a desalination facility was built at El Tatio and can still be seen there today -> rm "and can still be seen there today" or find a newer source. A lot can happen in 18 years.
during the Tatio controversy power generation[192] and relations between the Chilean government and native communities also gained prominence among the disputed issues -> I believe the and after 192 should be removed. the word also also not necessary.
and the tourism industry of the region had been opposed to the project for a while -> Not quite clear if this is El Tatio's tourism industry of NZ/US. If the former, the phrase can be omitted, because it's already stated differently before. In the later cases, clarify.
FemkeMilene (
talk)
08:55, 30 September 2021 (UTC)reply
I'll support. I think the remaining open comment should be dealt with more generally, and it would be unfair to withhold a support for this we'll-researched article.
FemkeMilene (
talk)
12:37, 5 October 2021 (UTC)reply
Comments Support from TheDoctorWho
I'm a little concerned about the bullet list, I see it was mentioned above; however,
MOS:BULLETLIST states that "Bullets are used to discern, at a glance, the individual items in a list, usually when each item in the list is a simple word, phrase or single line of text, [...]. They are not appropriate for large paragraphs." which is what it is being used for here. As that guideline states there are always exceptions but I'm not sure that this necessarily is one.
Chile Route B-245 has been a
red link for
over two years now. I'm not knowledgeable enough on Chile Route's to know if this particular route is "notable and verifiable" but if its not it should [probably] be removed.
Scrolling through the rest of the article there's actually quite a few red links so same goes for any of those, unless their particularly notable or they're going to be created soon they should all be removed.
See, I am pretty sure that all of these redlinks can have articles created for them. I don't think we remove redlinks just because the article doesn't exist yet.
Jo-Jo Eumerus (
talk)
16:17, 30 September 2021 (UTC)reply
WP:REDLINK specifically says that unless the subjects article is likely to be created soon OR unless its notable and verifiable to remove them. This isn't particularly a deal breaker for me, I'm just wanting your opinion on whether or not they meet those requirements.
TheDoctorWho(talk)16:40, 30 September 2021 (UTC)reply
I think they all meet the "notable and verifiable", myself. Granted, being busy with other projects I don't intend to do a lot of work with these redlinks, but still.
Jo-Jo Eumerus (
talk)
16:42, 30 September 2021 (UTC)reply
In that case they're fine, just to clear up my comments you're not obligated to work on any of the red links if you don't want to, I was just trying to make sure the article followed appropriate guidelines, which according to you, they do.
TheDoctorWho(talk)18:16, 30 September 2021 (UTC)reply