Talk:Antofalla/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Ceranthor (talk · contribs) 17:02, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I will be reviewing this. ceranthor 17:02, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Lead

"Antofalla itself is a remote volcano, close to the town of Antofalla, Catamarca." - these are contradictory, no?
"It is part of the volcanic segment of the Andes in Argentina" - I would link to the Andean Volcanic Belt and the Andes itself here
"Antofalla volcano is located in a region with basins-and-ranges-like topography" - this is probably unclear to a lay reader... suggest rewriting for clarity

Fixed these things. I left "basin-and-range" in since the literal meaning is close enough there. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 17:17, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Name

"The name may be derived from anta, anti, antu, which mean "metal" (especially "copper") in the indigenous language Quechua.[3] " - "means", not "mean"

Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 17:17, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Geography and structure

"Antofalla is part of the Central Volcanic Zone of the Andes, which runs along the border between Argentina and Chile[1] and whose main expression occurs in the Western Cordillera.[11] " - don't think "whose" is correct here
If there's no data available for Cerro Bajo-Cerro Onas, you should clarify that or potentially leave it out
"These volcanic centres overlap with each other,[25] are all much smaller than the main Antofalla volcano and little eroded" - "little eroded" reads awkwardly; maybe rewrite this sentence
"Cerro Onas is constructed by an ignimbrite and ignimbrites occur elsewhere in the complex[27] including a recent one in the Quebrada de las Cuevas area,[28] and between Cerro de la Aguada and Cerro Cajeros lies the Cerro la Botijuela obsidian dome.[27]" - run-on; rewrite for clarity and split into two sentences

I thought that "whose" was correct; what would be another term? Regarding Bajo-Onas, the source is an incomplete map which does not give labels for this peak beyond their name. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 17:17, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Geology

"Volcanism does not occur along the entire length of the subduction zone; north of 15° and south of 28° a flatter subduction is associated with the absence of volcanic activity.[11] " - "a flatter subduction" - what does this mean? If you're indicating that the angles of decline/incline are different, you should be more explicit in what makes the difference I think
"A further volcanic zone, the Austral Volcanic Zone, is caused by the subduction of the Antarctic Plate beneath the South America Plate.[12]" - might be worth indicating its location as opposed to the other zones, rather than just saying "a further ... zone"
"The whole region is tectonically controlled by various lineaments which direct the ascent of magma and the location of basins" - "tectonically controlled"?
"some of these lineaments exist since the Precambrian" - grammar
Don't like the bulleted segment under composition. That should be converted into prose.

Mostly done; some of the lineaments are still active so using present tense is warranted, and I don't think that one can easily force the bulleted list into prose form; it's better in list form as it's four distinct occurrences. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 17:17, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Eruptive history

Worth it to explain what mafic and felsic mean to a lay reader.

Added two explanatory notes. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 17:17, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Climbing

Any more info on this? This section is bare.

The only source I know of for such a thing is John Biggar, which may have WP:SPS problems. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 17:17, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

More comments on references and images to follow once these are addressed. ceranthor 15:48, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Responded to a couple of points and actioned others. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 17:17, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Fine. More reference comments below. ceranthor 23:35, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

References

For ref 5, " Moreno 2012, p. 104,105.", why not just make it pp. 104 to 105? Same with refs 50, 56, 57, and 66?
Ref 17 needs an access date
for consistency, any references with all caps should be changed so that they match the others
same with the sources that are all caps as the above note
why are certain refs with more than three authors listed as et al. but others have all the authors listed?
why are certain journal articles given individual page references but in other cases you cite the entire journal article as one source?
for ref 65, surely you don't mean to give a range from p. 938–938?
Seem reliable and comprehensive
Copyvio tool checks out

Good work. I can pass this once these are addressed! ceranthor 23:35, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ceranthor All done, but the GVP template does not seem to accept access dates. The number of authors displayed thing seems to be an {{sfn}} problem. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 12:37, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Jo-Jo Eumerus: I think they become et al. once you reach four authors or more. Nonetheless, my other concerns have been addressed, so I will go ahead and pass this. Nice work. ceranthor 22:33, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]