None of the images are decorative (I'm pretty sure that's just like a basic background image or something), so they do need an alt attribute as they serve a purpose (otherwise they wouldn't be in the article). You can just do "refer to caption" if it makes sense. For the tables, everything is listed at MOS:DTAB under the data tables header. It's just adding a couple of words and symbols.
Heartfox (
talk)
03:37, 20 February 2021 (UTC)reply
I added row scopes for you :) For the California map alt text, it's probably better to just say "a 1650 map of California" as "California used to be depicted as an island in maps" is not really a text-version of the image.
Heartfox (
talk)
18:31, 20 February 2021 (UTC)reply
the radiative forcing of the volcano is now given in three significant digits. Given we can't give too many ifs and buts compared to a scientific paper, two significant digits is more appropriate I believe.
I'm not sure how the source about sunspots should be interpreted. The way I read it, visible sunspots are potential phenomenon of atmospheric aerosols, but not particularly of this volcano. Table 1 of that paper includes a list of actual observations, which don't include the sunspots.
In Arequipa, houses[23] and the cathedral collapsed during mass[169] after an earthquake[73] on 27 February,[96] concomitant with the beginning of the second stage.[77] -> can this be reworded so that the sentence rolls without as many mid-sentence cites?
FemkeMilene (
talk)
17:54, 22 March 2021 (UTC)reply
For comparison, another large Holocene eruption in the Central Andes[131] which exceeded Huaynaputina's in size,[132] the eruption of Cerro Blanco in Argentina about 2,300 ± 60 BCE, erupted a bulk volume of 110 km3 (26 cu mi) of rock, equivalent to a volcanic explosivity index of 7.[133] -> which exceeded Huaynaputina's in size redundant, leaving it out makes sentence flow better. Starting with For example, the eruption of Cerro Blanco in Argentina about 2,300 ± 60 BCE further improves flow
and the Spaniards for poor habits -> sentence doesn't roll for me.. Not sure what is meant with poor habits
The word the source uses is
Spanish: amancebados which apparently translates to "sleeping" in the sense of sexual intercourse. I've changed the word but I think a better word is needed.
Jo-Jo Eumerus (
talk)
10:22, 24 March 2021 (UTC)reply
analysis showed that seismic activity was concentrated around the amphitheatre with no recorded earthquakes within it -> redundant with previous clause
and on the pumice deposits from the 1600 eruption it only occurs during the wet season -> change word order. Only on third reading I discovered that deposits wasn't the verb.
FemkeMilene (
talk)
17:06, 23 March 2021 (UTC)reply
On the other hand, mythology held that the lack of sacrifices had upset the devil who had sent a large snake[e] named chipiroque or pichiniqui to announce "horrifying storms"[191][74] – which eventually ended up killing the natives anyway -> don't understand this sentence
Gah. Writing that section out of disparate sources was a nightmare. Rewrote this a little but I don't think it can be made much clearer than this. I don't like the "according to mythology" formulation but I can't think of anything better.
Jo-Jo Eumerus (
talk)
11:08, 25 March 2021 (UTC)reply
The Huaynaputina eruption has also been associated with perchlorate deposition in Greenland.[207] -> explain the relevance of this. Associated is vague, perchlorate is jargon. Feels like an add-on to an otherwise lovely paragraph.
While an older hypothesis by de Silva and Francis held that the entry of water into the magmatic system may have triggered the eruption,[65] a 2006 study argues that the entry of new dacitic magma into a pre-existent dacitic magma system triggered the 1600 eruption; furthermore movement of deep andesitic magmas that had generated the new dacite produced movements within the volcano -> cut sentence in two?
FemkeMilene (
talk)
18:33, 24 March 2021 (UTC)reply
Conclusion: I'm still finding prose that I do not find that engaging, which prevents me from supporting at this point. I'm likely to support only after a round of copy-editing with somebody better at prose than me.
FemkeMilene (
talk)
18:33, 24 March 2021 (UTC)reply
I've dealt with the issues flagged here,
FemkeMilene, but I take that there are more prose problems than the ones mentioned here, yes? Do you or
User:SandyGeorgia have an idea where to ask for help on them (on or off FAC)? I think I have basically used up the available prose resources we have.
Jo-Jo Eumerus (
talk)
11:08, 25 March 2021 (UTC)reply
Jo-Jo, sorry to say that (as we all know :), prose is not my strength. I go through your work pre-FAC to catch as much of the jargon and MOS stuff as I can, but can't usually be helpful in bringing prose to a higher level. I do see how often you are constrained by your citation style, where you want to scrupulously cite each little piece, which can result in prose difficulties; perhaps over time you will move towards more citation bundling, which might free up your prose somewhat. Also, because your subject matter is highly technical, you are a bit constrained in soliciting help from GOCE, and I wouldn't go there; I am afraid they would do more damage in terms of changing meaning. I can only suggest some of the editors who have helped out at your articles in the past; perhaps one of them will jump in. @
ComplexRational,
Fowler&fowler, and
Iridescent:. Alternately,
Gog the Mild might be willing to recuse for a copyedit, as he is competent to this task. Unfortunately, one of our most able copyeditors,
Tony1 has been alienated from the FAC process, and we no longer have Eric Corbett. Good luck, and I'm sorry I can't be more useful.
SandyGeorgia (
Talk)
15:36, 25 March 2021 (UTC)reply
"...Huaynaputina's eruption commenced on 16 February 1600". The cited source says 19 February
"it is also spelled ... Guagua Putina".[4] The cited source doesn't say that it is spelled as such. It is talking of a supposedly erroneous reference in a newspaper article that Guagua Putina and Misti are the same. Web search shows that the newspaper article was indeed correct i.e. Misti is called Guagua Putina.
[5] "Volcán Huaynaputina" [Huaynaputina Volcano]. Recursos Turisticos. Retrieved 27 March 2019: unreachable. Any archived link?
IMO, when describing it, hyphen isn't used (e.g. The well is 100 meters deep); when referring to something, it is used (e.g. A 100-meter-deep well). That's how I think. Maybe a native speaker may better guide here.
"dated to 9,700 ± 190, less than 7,480 ± 40 years ago[72] and 5,750 years before present, respectively." Drop "years ago"
No; "years ago" and "before present" are not the same unit. I think the former needs to be made "present"-independent but I am not sure how.
Jo-Jo Eumerus (
talk)
17:37, 17 March 2021 (UTC)reply
"although it is known that non-volcanic mountains were also offered sacrifices in southern Peru." that → whether?
I had sort of abandoned the review as I was unwilling to oppose. Since the nom is going to be archived now, I will describe my main concern. Addressing of which, I believe, will be useful in the future nom and attract more reviews.
The article is written like a journal paper, assuming good deal of background knowledge and familiarity with jargon. Especially, the sections Geology and Eruption history, to lesser extent also Geography, are very difficult to follow, with number of unexplained technical terms, and allusions to not so self-evident facts, appearing almost every next line, and details that are suitable only in a research article. Someone with no knowledge of the subject will almost certainly be lost. Some examples follow:
"It is likely that the development of the later Huaynaputina volcano within the composite volcano is coincidental,[33] although a similar tectonic stress field controlled the younger vents.[30]"
"Volcanic activity in that zone has moved since the Jurassic from the present-day coast region where remnants persist in the Cordillera de la Costa eastward into the actual Andes[13] and the present-day volcanic arc, where it is defined by stratovolcanoes.[19]"
"The basement underneath Huaynaputina is formed by almost 2-kilometre-thick (1.2 mi) sediments and volcanic intrusions of Paleozoic to Mesozoic age[33] including the Yura Group[41] as well as the Cretaceous Matalaque Formation of volcanic origin.[42]"
"In 1962, there were reportedly no fumaroles within the amphitheatre,[83] though fumaroles occur in the amphitheatre close to the three vents.[83] There is a fumarole on the third vent, and fumaroles occur in association with dykes that crop out in the amphitheatre.[30]" This is unencyclopedic style and typical of research papers. It should be changed, for example, to something like: "Although no fumaroles were detected in 1962,[83] several have been reported in the amphitheatre recently.[83][30]
"At least one of the vents has been described as an ash cone.[31]" trivial.
"Northeast-east of Huaynaputina,[28] the terrain drops off steeply (2.3 km or 1.4 mi vertically and 6 km or 3.7 mi horizontally[23]) into the Río Tambo valley, which runs southward and then westward as it rounds Huaynaputina." Stuff inside the brackets is to be dropped and description of valley simplified.
I understand that explaining every term and phenomena is not possible, but relying solely on links is also not helpful. I think creating a balance is possible. AhmadLX-
(Wikiposta)21:39, 22 March 2021 (UTC)reply
I realize that it's poor form for me to reply to examples of concerns, but I don't agree that these examples are too unclear for a lay audience. Knowing exactly what the Matalaque Formation is, for example, isn't necessary to understand the article subject and it can't really be explained within the text without a lot of distraction. I don't entirely agree with the other points, either - even a layperson knows that "vent" can simply be a hole, rather than a hill.
Jo-Jo Eumerus (
talk)
12:38, 23 March 2021 (UTC)reply
I partially agree. I think the sentence with the fumaroles is indeed difficult to read, as is the second example. Jargon is easier to place in context when the sentence structure is easier. I don't mind the mention of Matalaque Formation, even though I have no idea what it is. Not important for the overall sentence.
FemkeMilene (
talk)
17:04, 23 March 2021 (UTC)reply
Coordinator note
This nomination has been open for nearly five weeks and has yet to attract a support. Unless there are a couple of indications that reviewers consider it worthy of promotion over the next two or three days, it is liable to be archived.
Gog the Mild (
talk)
15:26, 22 March 2021 (UTC)reply
I plan to come back on Thursday to finish a source review. Am I right in my understanding that that involves a) checking that all sources are reliable b) spot-checking various sources (how many?) and c) checking if formatting is consistent? Or is c not considered part of the source review?
FemkeMilene (
talk)
17:45, 22 March 2021 (UTC)reply
FemkeMilene, yes - all three. c is part of a source review. b, given that Jo-Jo is an experienced nominator, would be covered by five or six random checks; although if these raised any issues you would likely want to do a few more.
Gog the Mild (
talk)
14:54, 24 March 2021 (UTC)reply
Source review by FemkeMilene
Formatting: mostly fine.
I'm noticing a missing superscript in 14C in a title,
you do write 'in Spanish' explicitly, but don't do so for the french source.
Largest explosive eruption in historical times in the Andes at Huaynaputina volcano, a.d. 1600, southern Peru -> they use mini-capitals, standard writing is normal capitals, never seen it written a.d.
Paredes, Japura; Blanca, Saida -> I don't think this name is appropriately formatted. It should be Japura Paredes as surnames and SAIDA BLANCA as first names I believe. In the 'thank you', you can read that Japura is comes from the father and Paredes from the mother, so seems standard Spanish naming convention.
Reliable sourcing: there are a couple of AGU meeting abstracts, which aren't peer reviewed. Are they all used for uncontroversial facts?
Spot checking: I've done 10 checks, one possible minor disparity, one source that is possibly too old
As a result, natives and Franciscan friars reached the summit of that volcano and threw relics of saints into its crater -> this sentence implies the natives may have contributed to to throwing in relics into the volcano, which isn't what the source says. (Also; it's not that important that they reached the summit, follows from the fact that they threw in stuff)
Their formation may have been stimulated by the entry of mafic magmas into the magmatic system -> 2001 source. Is this amount of uncertainty still warranted or has science progressed?
FemkeMilene (
talk)
18:33, 24 March 2021 (UTC)reply
Regretfully this does not show signs of gaining a consensus for promotion any time soon, so I am going to archive it. The normal two week break before a further nomination will not apply.
Gog the Mild (
talk)
10:38, 26 March 2021 (UTC)reply
Closing note: This
candidate has been archived, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see
WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the
bot goes through.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
None of the images are decorative (I'm pretty sure that's just like a basic background image or something), so they do need an alt attribute as they serve a purpose (otherwise they wouldn't be in the article). You can just do "refer to caption" if it makes sense. For the tables, everything is listed at MOS:DTAB under the data tables header. It's just adding a couple of words and symbols.
Heartfox (
talk)
03:37, 20 February 2021 (UTC)reply
I added row scopes for you :) For the California map alt text, it's probably better to just say "a 1650 map of California" as "California used to be depicted as an island in maps" is not really a text-version of the image.
Heartfox (
talk)
18:31, 20 February 2021 (UTC)reply
the radiative forcing of the volcano is now given in three significant digits. Given we can't give too many ifs and buts compared to a scientific paper, two significant digits is more appropriate I believe.
I'm not sure how the source about sunspots should be interpreted. The way I read it, visible sunspots are potential phenomenon of atmospheric aerosols, but not particularly of this volcano. Table 1 of that paper includes a list of actual observations, which don't include the sunspots.
In Arequipa, houses[23] and the cathedral collapsed during mass[169] after an earthquake[73] on 27 February,[96] concomitant with the beginning of the second stage.[77] -> can this be reworded so that the sentence rolls without as many mid-sentence cites?
FemkeMilene (
talk)
17:54, 22 March 2021 (UTC)reply
For comparison, another large Holocene eruption in the Central Andes[131] which exceeded Huaynaputina's in size,[132] the eruption of Cerro Blanco in Argentina about 2,300 ± 60 BCE, erupted a bulk volume of 110 km3 (26 cu mi) of rock, equivalent to a volcanic explosivity index of 7.[133] -> which exceeded Huaynaputina's in size redundant, leaving it out makes sentence flow better. Starting with For example, the eruption of Cerro Blanco in Argentina about 2,300 ± 60 BCE further improves flow
and the Spaniards for poor habits -> sentence doesn't roll for me.. Not sure what is meant with poor habits
The word the source uses is
Spanish: amancebados which apparently translates to "sleeping" in the sense of sexual intercourse. I've changed the word but I think a better word is needed.
Jo-Jo Eumerus (
talk)
10:22, 24 March 2021 (UTC)reply
analysis showed that seismic activity was concentrated around the amphitheatre with no recorded earthquakes within it -> redundant with previous clause
and on the pumice deposits from the 1600 eruption it only occurs during the wet season -> change word order. Only on third reading I discovered that deposits wasn't the verb.
FemkeMilene (
talk)
17:06, 23 March 2021 (UTC)reply
On the other hand, mythology held that the lack of sacrifices had upset the devil who had sent a large snake[e] named chipiroque or pichiniqui to announce "horrifying storms"[191][74] – which eventually ended up killing the natives anyway -> don't understand this sentence
Gah. Writing that section out of disparate sources was a nightmare. Rewrote this a little but I don't think it can be made much clearer than this. I don't like the "according to mythology" formulation but I can't think of anything better.
Jo-Jo Eumerus (
talk)
11:08, 25 March 2021 (UTC)reply
The Huaynaputina eruption has also been associated with perchlorate deposition in Greenland.[207] -> explain the relevance of this. Associated is vague, perchlorate is jargon. Feels like an add-on to an otherwise lovely paragraph.
While an older hypothesis by de Silva and Francis held that the entry of water into the magmatic system may have triggered the eruption,[65] a 2006 study argues that the entry of new dacitic magma into a pre-existent dacitic magma system triggered the 1600 eruption; furthermore movement of deep andesitic magmas that had generated the new dacite produced movements within the volcano -> cut sentence in two?
FemkeMilene (
talk)
18:33, 24 March 2021 (UTC)reply
Conclusion: I'm still finding prose that I do not find that engaging, which prevents me from supporting at this point. I'm likely to support only after a round of copy-editing with somebody better at prose than me.
FemkeMilene (
talk)
18:33, 24 March 2021 (UTC)reply
I've dealt with the issues flagged here,
FemkeMilene, but I take that there are more prose problems than the ones mentioned here, yes? Do you or
User:SandyGeorgia have an idea where to ask for help on them (on or off FAC)? I think I have basically used up the available prose resources we have.
Jo-Jo Eumerus (
talk)
11:08, 25 March 2021 (UTC)reply
Jo-Jo, sorry to say that (as we all know :), prose is not my strength. I go through your work pre-FAC to catch as much of the jargon and MOS stuff as I can, but can't usually be helpful in bringing prose to a higher level. I do see how often you are constrained by your citation style, where you want to scrupulously cite each little piece, which can result in prose difficulties; perhaps over time you will move towards more citation bundling, which might free up your prose somewhat. Also, because your subject matter is highly technical, you are a bit constrained in soliciting help from GOCE, and I wouldn't go there; I am afraid they would do more damage in terms of changing meaning. I can only suggest some of the editors who have helped out at your articles in the past; perhaps one of them will jump in. @
ComplexRational,
Fowler&fowler, and
Iridescent:. Alternately,
Gog the Mild might be willing to recuse for a copyedit, as he is competent to this task. Unfortunately, one of our most able copyeditors,
Tony1 has been alienated from the FAC process, and we no longer have Eric Corbett. Good luck, and I'm sorry I can't be more useful.
SandyGeorgia (
Talk)
15:36, 25 March 2021 (UTC)reply
"...Huaynaputina's eruption commenced on 16 February 1600". The cited source says 19 February
"it is also spelled ... Guagua Putina".[4] The cited source doesn't say that it is spelled as such. It is talking of a supposedly erroneous reference in a newspaper article that Guagua Putina and Misti are the same. Web search shows that the newspaper article was indeed correct i.e. Misti is called Guagua Putina.
[5] "Volcán Huaynaputina" [Huaynaputina Volcano]. Recursos Turisticos. Retrieved 27 March 2019: unreachable. Any archived link?
IMO, when describing it, hyphen isn't used (e.g. The well is 100 meters deep); when referring to something, it is used (e.g. A 100-meter-deep well). That's how I think. Maybe a native speaker may better guide here.
"dated to 9,700 ± 190, less than 7,480 ± 40 years ago[72] and 5,750 years before present, respectively." Drop "years ago"
No; "years ago" and "before present" are not the same unit. I think the former needs to be made "present"-independent but I am not sure how.
Jo-Jo Eumerus (
talk)
17:37, 17 March 2021 (UTC)reply
"although it is known that non-volcanic mountains were also offered sacrifices in southern Peru." that → whether?
I had sort of abandoned the review as I was unwilling to oppose. Since the nom is going to be archived now, I will describe my main concern. Addressing of which, I believe, will be useful in the future nom and attract more reviews.
The article is written like a journal paper, assuming good deal of background knowledge and familiarity with jargon. Especially, the sections Geology and Eruption history, to lesser extent also Geography, are very difficult to follow, with number of unexplained technical terms, and allusions to not so self-evident facts, appearing almost every next line, and details that are suitable only in a research article. Someone with no knowledge of the subject will almost certainly be lost. Some examples follow:
"It is likely that the development of the later Huaynaputina volcano within the composite volcano is coincidental,[33] although a similar tectonic stress field controlled the younger vents.[30]"
"Volcanic activity in that zone has moved since the Jurassic from the present-day coast region where remnants persist in the Cordillera de la Costa eastward into the actual Andes[13] and the present-day volcanic arc, where it is defined by stratovolcanoes.[19]"
"The basement underneath Huaynaputina is formed by almost 2-kilometre-thick (1.2 mi) sediments and volcanic intrusions of Paleozoic to Mesozoic age[33] including the Yura Group[41] as well as the Cretaceous Matalaque Formation of volcanic origin.[42]"
"In 1962, there were reportedly no fumaroles within the amphitheatre,[83] though fumaroles occur in the amphitheatre close to the three vents.[83] There is a fumarole on the third vent, and fumaroles occur in association with dykes that crop out in the amphitheatre.[30]" This is unencyclopedic style and typical of research papers. It should be changed, for example, to something like: "Although no fumaroles were detected in 1962,[83] several have been reported in the amphitheatre recently.[83][30]
"At least one of the vents has been described as an ash cone.[31]" trivial.
"Northeast-east of Huaynaputina,[28] the terrain drops off steeply (2.3 km or 1.4 mi vertically and 6 km or 3.7 mi horizontally[23]) into the Río Tambo valley, which runs southward and then westward as it rounds Huaynaputina." Stuff inside the brackets is to be dropped and description of valley simplified.
I understand that explaining every term and phenomena is not possible, but relying solely on links is also not helpful. I think creating a balance is possible. AhmadLX-
(Wikiposta)21:39, 22 March 2021 (UTC)reply
I realize that it's poor form for me to reply to examples of concerns, but I don't agree that these examples are too unclear for a lay audience. Knowing exactly what the Matalaque Formation is, for example, isn't necessary to understand the article subject and it can't really be explained within the text without a lot of distraction. I don't entirely agree with the other points, either - even a layperson knows that "vent" can simply be a hole, rather than a hill.
Jo-Jo Eumerus (
talk)
12:38, 23 March 2021 (UTC)reply
I partially agree. I think the sentence with the fumaroles is indeed difficult to read, as is the second example. Jargon is easier to place in context when the sentence structure is easier. I don't mind the mention of Matalaque Formation, even though I have no idea what it is. Not important for the overall sentence.
FemkeMilene (
talk)
17:04, 23 March 2021 (UTC)reply
Coordinator note
This nomination has been open for nearly five weeks and has yet to attract a support. Unless there are a couple of indications that reviewers consider it worthy of promotion over the next two or three days, it is liable to be archived.
Gog the Mild (
talk)
15:26, 22 March 2021 (UTC)reply
I plan to come back on Thursday to finish a source review. Am I right in my understanding that that involves a) checking that all sources are reliable b) spot-checking various sources (how many?) and c) checking if formatting is consistent? Or is c not considered part of the source review?
FemkeMilene (
talk)
17:45, 22 March 2021 (UTC)reply
FemkeMilene, yes - all three. c is part of a source review. b, given that Jo-Jo is an experienced nominator, would be covered by five or six random checks; although if these raised any issues you would likely want to do a few more.
Gog the Mild (
talk)
14:54, 24 March 2021 (UTC)reply
Source review by FemkeMilene
Formatting: mostly fine.
I'm noticing a missing superscript in 14C in a title,
you do write 'in Spanish' explicitly, but don't do so for the french source.
Largest explosive eruption in historical times in the Andes at Huaynaputina volcano, a.d. 1600, southern Peru -> they use mini-capitals, standard writing is normal capitals, never seen it written a.d.
Paredes, Japura; Blanca, Saida -> I don't think this name is appropriately formatted. It should be Japura Paredes as surnames and SAIDA BLANCA as first names I believe. In the 'thank you', you can read that Japura is comes from the father and Paredes from the mother, so seems standard Spanish naming convention.
Reliable sourcing: there are a couple of AGU meeting abstracts, which aren't peer reviewed. Are they all used for uncontroversial facts?
Spot checking: I've done 10 checks, one possible minor disparity, one source that is possibly too old
As a result, natives and Franciscan friars reached the summit of that volcano and threw relics of saints into its crater -> this sentence implies the natives may have contributed to to throwing in relics into the volcano, which isn't what the source says. (Also; it's not that important that they reached the summit, follows from the fact that they threw in stuff)
Their formation may have been stimulated by the entry of mafic magmas into the magmatic system -> 2001 source. Is this amount of uncertainty still warranted or has science progressed?
FemkeMilene (
talk)
18:33, 24 March 2021 (UTC)reply
Regretfully this does not show signs of gaining a consensus for promotion any time soon, so I am going to archive it. The normal two week break before a further nomination will not apply.
Gog the Mild (
talk)
10:38, 26 March 2021 (UTC)reply
Closing note: This
candidate has been archived, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see
WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the
bot goes through.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.