Talk:Coranzulí (caldera)

Coranzulí (caldera) has been listed as one of the Geography and places good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Review: August 14, 2023. (Reviewed version).

Volcanoes Low‑importance

	Volcanoes portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Volcanoes, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of volcanoes, volcanology, igneous petrology, and related subjects on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.VolcanoesWikipedia:WikiProject VolcanoesTemplate:WikiProject VolcanoesWikiProject Volcanoes articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

The following references may be useful when improving this article in the future:

Google Scholar

GA Review

Passed. Vanamonde (Talk) 00:11, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

This review is transcluded from Talk:Coranzulí (caldera)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Vanamonde93 (talk · contribs) 23:41, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Checklist

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Is it well written?
A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:

B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
No MOS issues that I can see.
Is it verifiable with no original research?
A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:
Only the one issue noted below.

B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:
All sources look to be of high quality.

C. It contains no original research:
I spotchecked a fair number of the footnotes, and found no substantial issues, minor queries noted below.

D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
Earwig's tool only flags titles, names, and technical phrases; spotchecks found no issues.
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
I see no major omissions that are covered by sources.

B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
No extraneous material
Is it neutral?
It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
No issues
Is it stable?
It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
No issues
Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
See comment below.

B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
Used image is appropriate.
Overall:
Pass or Fail:
Passing, see closing comment below. Vanamonde (Talk) 00:10, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

All sources look to be scholarly sources, which makes this easy. I note the use of some conference proceedings, which I believe are acceptable at the GA level, but I would question their use at FAC as they are not peer-reviewed in the usual sense. They also don't seem to be used for anything particularly controversial, though I'm not entirely certain what controversy would look like on this article.
The Guzman et al 2017 source needs some publisher information.
Hmm, looking at this it seems like it was published at a conference. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 18:18, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Spot-checked Breitkreuz et al, no issues, page cited doesn't mention Coranzuli but is covered elsewhere in the article.
Spot-checked Murray et al, no issues.
Spot-checking Guzman et al 2020.
FN1a is used for precise coordinates, but the source only gives a range; can you explain?
That's because the coordinates are inferred from the map. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 19:54, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

FN1b is used for the odd fragment "mostly filled by"; seems a little unnecessary, but I don't see that in the source, can you clarify?
Yeah, that's again inferred from the map, where the insides are mostly red or brown (lavas on top of the dome) Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 18:43, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

FN1d-g discuss specific ignimbrites, not named on page 3; I assume you're referring to the map, which is verging on interpretation but defensible here I think because the authors aren't going to spell out something so basic; but at the moment you have one source for their name and another for their location that doesn't name them, and that's not 100% ideal.
I see, I've put in an explanatory footnote. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 18:43, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Previous two points will need to wait for WP:RX. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 19:54, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Is it Guzman 2020 you need access to? I assumed you had it; if you'll send me an email, I'll reply with the pdf. Vanamonde (Talk) 20:54, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but note that the preprint isn't of much use due to e.g displaced images and different page numbers. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:59, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I had access to the published version as of two days ago. The offer remains open. Vanamonde (Talk) 23:25, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Emailed. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 18:09, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

FN18 cites page 14, but I'm seeing the 2050km2 figure on pg 13.

FN47b checks out fine, but is placed very oddly in the text, being separated from what it's used for by another citation and multiple parentheses...

All other references to this source check out.
Mended the above two issues. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 19:54, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"Part of the Argentine Andes' volcanic segment, it is considered a member of the Central Volcanic Zone." CVZ is a zone, not a group, surely? "Member" isn't appropriate.
Well, it's a zone made up of volcanoes, so. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 19:54, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but it's a grammatical oddity...would you be okay saying "and within the Central Volcanic Zone"?
No opinion; I think that a volcanic zone can have volcanoes as its "members". Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:59, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"At its heart lies the Altiplano-Puna volcanic complex (APVC)" I'm confused by this; Coranzuli is a single caldera, is it not part of the APVC, rather than the other way around?
Rewritten. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 19:54, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Much better, but now the connection between the APVC and Coranzuli is missing; I've made a tweak, if you don't like it feel free to address it a different way.
Yeah, it works better now. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:59, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
And if my understanding above is correct, I don't know why the APVC's behavior is first-paragraph material. It would be preferable, I think, to focus on the caldera itself; it's size and geology perhaps.
Oddly, I think it's acceptable here since Coranzuli and these volcanoes are more commonly discussed as components of the APVC than separately. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 19:54, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it's a huge issue, so okay.
Was Coranzuli itself the source of the four ignimbrites? Perhaps I misunderstood the Guzman source, but I got the impression it is the name given to one caldera within a complex that produced all of that geological activity.
One caldera that produced four ignimbrites, part of a wider complex of calderas with ignimbrites. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 19:54, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The sentence about economic activity seems extraneous to me; this isn't an article about the town.
Yes, but the caldera does not exist in a vacuum - the terrain is used for pastures. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 19:54, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, but that's not currently clear (and if something similar applies to the highway, that's not clear either). It currently sounds like the town is some distance away, and its residents engage in herding and agriculture. Vanamonde (Talk) 21:21, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've noted the area thing. Regarding the highway thing, it's mostly a way to discuss how to get to the volcano. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:59, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"the second-largest and second-highest in the world" Suggest inserting "high plateau"; isn't obvious.
Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 19:54, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"It has dimensions of 14 by 14 kilometres (8.7 mi × 8.7 mi)[13] or 16 by 12 kilometres (9.9 mi × 7.5 mi)" Suggest reframing the uncertainty as "dimensions have been estimated as..."
Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 19:54, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Readers ignorant of Spanish will not recognize "Cerro" for what it is; I suggest tweaking the introduction of "Cerro Coranzulí" to make it clear it's a name given to the peak.
Better now? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 19:54, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Much.
Is there any information on the etymology of the volcano? Related: I assume the caldera, presumably investigated after the peak was named, takes its name from the latter; but is that something you could source?
No; placenames are a problem because there are few (traceable) sources for early exploration efforts and as the 1669 eruption of Mount Etna proved, one cannot use dictionary definitions for this. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 19:54, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"form mesa landscapes" Perhaps this has a specific meaning in geology, but it does not read grammatically correct to me; "forms mesas in the surrounding landscape" is what I'd suggest.
Yeah, it's meant to be descriptive. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 19:54, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"The Coranzulí river originates on the volcano " is this fed by the spring? Or is it rain-fed?
I dunno, sorry. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 19:54, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"Other mountains are Cerro Moraya and..." this is also grammatically odd. Which other mountains? Others part of the APVC? Others within 50km? Others in Argentina?
Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 19:54, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Still not clear to the lay reader; suggest "other peaks within the Coranzuli caldera are..."
I dunno whether we can say such a thing since the source does not show the caldera outline. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:59, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, but some reworking is still needed; we're saying "other mountains at...[mountain]". It doesn't make grammatical sense. It may be simplest to say "other nearby peaks". Vanamonde (Talk) 23:25, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Put "peaks" in instead. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 18:09, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, that doesn't fix it; it's the "at Coranzuli" that's the problem, because that's grammatically incorrect.
Now another. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 19:43, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"as well as as-yet undiscovered buried calderas." This needs a qualifier like "presumed" or "expected"; if they're undiscovered, we can't definitively say they're there...
Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:59, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
A little sparse on images...I see an image of the APVC in that article; is that something you could use? And how about an illustrative image of the dominant minerals? Just a suggestion.
Just a personal preference, but I am not keen on using only tangentially related images. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:59, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Okay on the minerals, but you yourself said above that Coranzuli is usually discussed in the context of the APVC, to the point where we're discussing the APVC's geology in the first paragraph. Illustration is one of the GA criteria, when possible, and it's clearly possible here. Vanamonde (Talk) 23:25, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
With space-based images it isn't; there currently isn't one covering this area of the Andes, sorry. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 18:09, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't quite understand what you mean by "with space-based images it isn't". Are you saying this image does not cover the APVC? Vanamonde (Talk) 19:23, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It shows part of the APVC but not Coranzuli. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 19:43, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Can you link or explain "succession", since it usually means something else?
Used a different word. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:59, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That's more or less it from me; I'd be happy to pass this once the outstanding issues are dealt with. Vanamonde (Talk) 21:21, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Final comment, in addition to the replies above; I'd suggest a hatnote to disambiguate from the town and explain the title (assuming this isn't in fact the primary topic?). Vanamonde (Talk) 19:23, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 19:43, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Passing, all comments addressed. I'm not too happy over the images: given the prominence the text gives to the APVC I think an image of it would be entirely appropriate; but in the absence of images of Coranzuli itself it's not a GA fail issue. Vanamonde (Talk) 00:10, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.