Jump to content

Talk:Coropuna

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Featured articleCoropuna is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
Main Page trophyThis article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on April 1, 2022.
Did You Know Article milestones
DateProcessResult
April 30, 2016Good article nomineeListed
July 4, 2019Good article reassessmentKept
October 12, 2019Peer reviewReviewed
December 25, 2019Featured article candidateNot promoted
April 25, 2020Featured article candidatePromoted
Did You Know A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on March 20, 2016.
The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that Coropuna (pictured), the tallest volcano in Peru, was active less than 2,000 years ago?
Current status: Featured article


Some questions following GOCE copy-edit

[edit]

In response to a request at Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/Requests, I have completed a copy-edit of Coropuna. I have a few questions:

1) The first sentence in the lead is:

  • Coropuna is a volcano in the Andes with an altitude of 6,377 metres (20,922 ft), in the Cordillera Ampato segment of the Peruvian Andes.

I may be wrong, but "a volcano...with an altitude" does not sound very elegant. I think something like this is better:

  • Coropuna is a volcano in the Andes whose summit reaches an altitude of 6,377 metres...
  • Coropuna is a volcano in the Andes that is 6,377 metres (20,922 ft) high...
  • Coropuna is a 6,377-metre (20,922 ft) high volcano in the Andes...

2) The first sentence of the second paragraph in Coropuna#Petrology is an incomplete sentence:

  • Based on chemical and petrographic data formed from water-poor source material at depth, with phenocrysts forming at depths of less than 35 kilometres (22 mi).

This needs to be fixed. Since I didn't know what meaning was intended, I didn't know how to fix it.

3) Toward the end of Coropuna#Petrology, you have the phrase "evolved rocks". I searched for anything in WP that would explain that phrase and found nothing. Can you explain the phrase, link it to an article, or use a different phrase?

4) In the section Coropuna#Volcanic history and future threat, first paragraph, there is a red-linked word, "planezes", which appears in this sentence:

  • Of Coropuna I, only planezes remain visible.

I searched for an article to which I could link the word, and I found only Du battant des lames au sommet des montagnes, where the word is actually defined in the section Du battant des lames au sommet des montagnes#Disputes up high as a "gently inclined volcanic plateau". In that phrase, "volcanic plateau" is linked to the article Volcanic plateau, but the word "planeze(s)" does not appear anywhere in that article. The word also does not appear in Wiktionary. I'm wondering if you want to link "planezes" to that article (since there is a definition there), or to the article on Volcanic plateau. It appears to be a French word. Judging from its absence in Wikipedia articles and Wiktionary, I wonder whether it is used in English at all. Jo-Jo Eumerus and Vsmith, what do you advise?

5) In the section Coropuna#Petrology, there are two red-linked terms, "latiandesites" and "titanomagnetite". "Latiandesites" also appears, unlinked, in the last paragraph in Coropuna#Geology and geography. I could not find any article mentioning "latiandesites", but there is an article on Andesites. Do you want to link the term to that article? "Titanomagnetite" is mentioned in quite a few WP articles, so I'm surprised there is no article on it. Do you want to leave those two as red links?

6) The word "edifice" appears several times in the section Coropuna#Geology and geography, each time unlinked. The first instance is in the last paragraph in the first large section of Coropuna#Geology and geography. (I had changed "edifice" to "volcano" at the beginning of that paragraph as one of my first edits. If it is not correct, feel free to revert or change it.) To me, it is not clear what is meant by "edifice". To the average reader, an edifice is a building. I assume that here you don't mean a building but some kind of mass of rock, but I don't know if you mean one particular volcano or more than one volcano. At the beginning of the article, you mention "massif", which (to me) further complicated things. I think these terms should be clearly defined, in the article, and it should be clear what the difference is between "volcano", "massif", and "edifice", if any.

7) In the section Coropuna#Geology and geography is a red-linked term, "Nevado Firura". I searched for "Firura" and found a mention of "Phirura (Firura)" in Kuntur Sayana (Arequipa). Do you want to link "Nevado Firura" to this article? – Corinne (talk) 22:55, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

8) In the section Coropuna#Climate and vegetation, there is a red-linked term, "ichu grass". Peter coxhead Can you find some information about this grass, and perhaps add something to this article or create a stub to which this can be linked? Corinne (talk) 22:58, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jo-Jo Eumerus Thanks for your reply, but I'm sorry to say that I don't understand what you mean. Do you mean you have "run into a technical issue...here"? If so, great, but what technical issue?  – Corinne (talk) 00:43, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Corinne: I meant that I tend to write in an overly technical style. Anyhow, issues #1, #2, #5, #6, #8 (by Peter coxhead) are fixed. Issues #3 and #4 need more work on my part. About #5 and #7, I shall look if there is a way to write articles explaining each term.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 07:47, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I've launched an article on "Firura". I've asked in the Minerals wikiproject about "titanomagnetite". "evolved" and "planeze" are still missing. I don't think enwikipedia has definitions for either term yet.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:53, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Corinne I've addressed the "evolved" and "planeze" issues; do they look good for you?Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:37, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I see a few small things I would change; I'll get to those in a minute. User:Baffle gab1978, I think most of your edits are fine, but I don't understand why you changed this sentence:
  • Coropuna has been active for at least five million years, with the bulk of the current cone having formed during the Pliocene–Pleistocene. to this:
  • Coropuna has been active for at least five million years; the bulk of the current cone formed during the Pliocene–Pleistocene.
Why change a smoothly flowing sentence, in which the relationship between the two parts of the sentence is clear, to two separate clauses that show very little connection with each other?  – Corinne (talk) 02:31, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Baffle gab1978: Pinging explicitly.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:53, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Reverted since no explanation was forthcoming and I agree with Corinne that the older version is better.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 12:53, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Corinne I see you said I see a few small things I would change; I'll get to those in a minute.; did you already handle these? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 12:50, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Jo-Jo Eumerus Well, now I don't remember what those things might be, but I do see I made one small edit within minutes of posting my comment (above) at 2:31 on 3 March. I've begun to read through the article once more, and I've made a few small edits. I wanted to ask you about some things:
1) In the second paragraph in Coropuna#Geography and geology you have this sentence:
  • These summits have a mostly smooth appearance.
While it is true that you had just mentioned and discussed two eastern summits, right before that you mentioned and discussed the western summits. So, it is not completely clear to which summits this short sentence refers. If it refers only to the eastern summits, you might write:
  • These eastern summits...
If it refers to both the western and eastern summits, you might write:
  • Both the eastern and western summits..., or
  • All of these summits...
2) In the section Coropuna#Volcanic history and future threat, you have this sentence:
  • The dating of these ignimbrites is not entirely clear.
Here, I am not completely sure, but I just want to ask you what you think. To me, "dating" is an action, an activity, a scientific process. I don't think you mean that the action/activity/scientific process is not clear. Don't you mean that the date, or dates, of formation of the ignimbrites is not clear? The way the sentence is worded, it looks like "dating" is being equated with "date(s) of formation". If I'm wrong, I'm happy to be corrected.
3) I'm puzzled by several sentences in the last paragraph in Coropuna#Volcanic history and future threat. I'll copy them here, and number them, for ease of reference. (Be sure to read everything before making any changes.)
(1) Interaction between the ice cap and future eruptive activity is considered to be a hazard at Coropuna, especially in light of the extreme altitude differences that are found in the territory. (2) Likewise, earthquakes could result in the collapse of part of the ice cap.[33] (3) The lahar hazard is further augmented by the extreme relief around the volcano, up to 4,000 metres (13,000 ft) over 15 kilometres (9.3 mi) horizontal.
Regarding the first sentence, in order to appreciate the hazard, the reader has to put together in his/her mind the direct result (heating) of "future eruptive activity" and "the ice cap", to come up with melting ice, rushing water flowing down the mountain, mudflows, etc. I'm wondering if it might be helpful to the average reader to explicitly explain the hazard.
Regarding the second sentence, it may not be clear to the average reader why "the collapse of part of the ice cap" would be a problem. You might consider adding just a bit to say what would happen if the ice cap collapsed.
You only bring in the word "lahar" in the third sentence. I guess any reader who doesn't know what it means would first click on the link and then re-read the sentence, and then, maybe, think to apply it to the first two sentences. The reader might wonder if a lahar is a result only of earthquakes or of earthquakes and "interaction between the ice cap and future eruptive activity". Perhaps if you explain, explicitly, the results of the events mentioned in the first and second sentences, and bring in the word "lahar" earlier than the third sentence, it would be clearer.
Also, the meaning of this phrase:
  • the extreme relief around the volcano, up to 4,000 metres (13,000 ft) over 15 kilometres (9.3 mi) horizontal
may not be clear to some readers. Of course, the reader can guess that "4,000 metres (13,000 ft)" refers to the height of the volcano, but s/he may not understand what "over 15 kilometres (9.3 mi) horizontal" means. Perhaps wording this in more ordinary English would help, something like:
  • with a height differential of X metres within a horizontal distance of Y km (mi), or
  • with a difference in height from X metres to Y metres within a horizontal space of Z km (mi).
I also wonder why you mention "extreme relief" here (and go into detail about it), when you just mentioned "extreme altitude differences" two sentences earlier (without explaining it). Do you really need both?
4) I had mentioned not finding an article for "latiandesites" in my first comments, above, and I know you made some changes regarding it. I just wanted to ask whether you intended to leave the word in the last paragraph in Coropuna#Geography and geology.
5) In the first paragraph in Coropuna#Petrology is the following sentence:
  • Earlier andesites are more basic than later ones.
It's not clear what you mean by "are more basic". Basic in what sense? Can you either link it to an article (or section of an article) that would explain this or add a short explanatory phrase, perhaps following "or", enclosed in a pair of commas: "are more basic, or...., than later ones"?
6) The first sentence in Coropuna#Petrology ends "at depth". I think this phrase has a specific meaning in geology that an average reader might not know. Can you either link it to an article or section of an article that would explain the phrase, or provide a short explanatory phrase right after it?
7) The third sentence is:
  • Temperatures of Coropuna's eruption products are estimated at 700–1,200 metres (2,300–3,900 ft).
This sentence is a bit confusing for an average reader. The sentence starts, "Temperatures...are estimated at", and the reader is expecting to find temperatures. Instead, s/he finds metres/ft. Then, it seems that (in an on-going basis, since present tense – "are estimated" –  is used) someone is estimating temperatures for Coropuna's eruption products, but how on earth could s/he estimate temperatures at "700–1,200 metres (2,300–3,900 ft)" (notice that "depth" is not mentioned here, so the reader has to assume/guess that it means below the surface of the earth). Surely, the estimator is not deep below the surface. It must be the eruption products, but judging from the "metres" information, it must be before they were erupted to the surface. Is there any way you could make this sentence clearer?
8) I'm going to copy the second paragraph in Coropuna#Petrology here:
Based on chemical and petrographic data, the lavas formed from water-poor source material at depth. Phenocrysts formed at depths of less than 35 kilometres (22 mi).[38] Temperatures of Coropuna's eruption products are estimated at 700–1,200 metres (2,300–3,900 ft). The magmas, during their whole journey to the surface, move over vertical distances of 70–120 kilometres (43–75 mi). During this ascent, secondary magmas are formed that generate intermediary-felsic rocks. Post-eruption, meltwater derived from the ice cap has caused hydrothermal alteration of the volcano.
You'll notice that the verbs jump around in tense. You've got:
formed - active voice, past tense - Describes an event in the past that is completed and unlikely to happen again.
formed - Same.
are estimated - passive voice, present tense -- Someone is estimating temperatures, but temperatures at what time is not clear.
move - active voice, present tense - Describes either an on-going event or a process, time not given.
are formed - passive voice, present tense - Same, but in passive voice.
has caused - active voice, present perfect tense - Describes relatively recent activity. (This sentence is O.K.)
The first two sentences are about past events. The two sentences starting "The magmas" describe either an on-going activity or a process, with the implication that the process still happens. If the first two sentences could be like these other two, you could change "formed" to "form" or "are formed". If the second pair could be describing a process in the past, you could change "move" to "moved" and "are formed" to "were formed". If you don't want to change the verbs, perhaps you could add a few words to indicate the reason for the change from past to present within the paragraph. Well, that's all for now.  – Corinne (talk) 20:20, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Corinne: In order:
    1. The summits will be a PITA; seems like every source has its own number of summits. Will check that tomorrow.
    2. Hmm, seems like "technical language" is showing through here. "Dating" in science refers to both the action and the result, but here it should solely refer to the result.
    3. That needs rewriting, yeah. I'll look at it tomorrow.
    4. I think that should be replaced with something else; I'll check that tomorrow too.
  • And that's really for this evening. Keep the comments going though, you've been a huge help here. Thanks! Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:28, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In Coropuna#Religious and archaeological importance is the following sentence:

  • An Inca path leading up to the mountain has been found, with bones and pottery fragments up to an altitude of 6,200 metres (20,300 ft).

I wonder if you really need "an altitude of". Without it, it would read as follows:

  • An Inca path leading up to the mountain has been found, with bones and pottery fragments up to 6,200 metres (20,300 ft).

I think it's clear that the numbers are altitude, but I wonder what you think. Also, I want to ask you about the Inca path. The first part of this sentence reads:

  • An Inca path leading up to the mountain has been found.

This means that the path leads to the base of the mountain but no further. If that's what is meant, then all right, but if you mean that the path leads up the mountain toward the summit, then you should remove "to", so it would read:

Reassessment

[edit]

Coropuna

[edit]
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review
Result: There is consensus that this entry does meet Wikipedia's good article criteria.StoryKai (talk) 07:37, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I realize this is a somewhat unusual request. This article was promoted to GA in April 2016 based on a version I wrote. With better developed Wiki skills and with additional sources I just did a total rewrite, with which the version assessed as GA has little in common. Thus the GA star the old version received might not carry over to the current version. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:36, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I prefer the current version to the one that last passed good article review. The sourcing and writing are certainly of a high quality. I can't imagine why we would delist it.Martinthewriter (talk) 21:33, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"Perennial snow fields are present on Coropuna, sometimes making it hard to measure the true extent of glaciation or glacier retreat."

[edit]

@Nick Moyes: Regarding this edit, I am not seeing it on that page in the source; where did you get it from? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 20:23, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Jo-Jo Eumerus: No, I wasn't in that source, hence why I pinged you. I'm sure I saw it in one of the references you used elsewhere in the article, but can't now remember which one, without wading back through. The page number "182" rings a bell, and it was used in the context of saying that there had been a downgrading of the imminent loss of the glacier by 2025. In effect, the presence of snow fields made the job of determining glacial retreat difficult, and thus previous estimates of melting were unreliable. Obviulsly, if you can't find it, we need to remove the statement, but I'm sure that was my take-away message from reading something earlier today. Sorry I'm being a bit woolly on this. Ah hold on - having just written all this waffle, I think it must have been used in the 'water resource' sub-section. Let me know if you find it. Is it OK if I put an 'In use' template on the article right now? I suspect we might both be wanting to edit the page at the same time.Nick Moyes (talk) 20:42, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
No, from now on and the next 10-12 hours I'll be watching TV and then going to bed.
The closest thing I can see is at Marinque et al. 2018, p.182, perhaps that can be used?
This edit seems OK to me. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 21:30, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Steam vents on Coropuna Este (30293366136).jpg

[edit]

Not sure about adding File:Steam vents on Coropuna Este (30293366136).jpg to the article - AFAIK none of the other sources on Coropuna mention fumarolic activity and that makes me wonder about the image. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 21:12, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Pre/post-FAC rewrite

[edit]

​​​So the first featured article candidacy has been withdrawn and now that it's post-Christmas, I can begin working on this. A first question is whether the external links section - which are mostly theses - should go altogether. I don't normally use these as sources as WP:SCHOLARSHIP cautions against their use and it's difficult to discern which ones are good sources, but some of these might be usable under WP:USEDBYOTHERS.

Also, since prose issues were a key concern in that FAC, I'd like to ask (just to begin with) whether the "Name" section is adequate on that terms. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 13:10, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
On the External links, I have three concerns:
  1. Most of them are not in English, so are unlikely to be used by others (you could possible add some of them at the es.wiki article).
  2. Many of them are student theses; presumably, they add nothing to the article that wouldn't be covered if Featured (comprehensive).
  3. Many of them, if they belong at all, would be in Further reading, as they aren't website links, rather papers or books.
I would keep only the Summitpost link. On Further reading, we have a similar issue: why isn't information from those sources incorporated into the article? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:07, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Ugh. Sorry for not coming back to this yesterday; I was busy completing African humid period which is now at Wikipedia:Peer review/African humid period/archive1. I've decided to remove the links from External Links save for the Summit Post link; with respect to Further Reading I've requested some of them at WP:RX. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 21:17, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I watchlisted your peer review as a reminder to self to have a look when I have more time. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:30, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ComplexRational review

[edit]

Pre-discussion

[edit]
Regarding the "Name" section, I made two small grammar corrections. I'm still not sure about the structure of the last sentence: I think it would suffice just to mention that another volcano exists with the same name; but it is completely separate is not really necessary and would be difficult to improve or elaborate on. Nothing else caught my attention here.
@SandyGeorgia and Fowler&fowler: Jo-Jo and I are fine establishing en-GB as the ENGVAR for consistency and future copyediting: can we go ahead converting it? (Side note: I'm probably not best suited to copyediting in en-GB.)
Should I copy here my comments from the FAC (excluding those that I struck)? Later today, I'll give it a top-to-bottom read and start posting additional comments.
ComplexRational (talk) 16:53, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I leave the choice of ENGVAR style to you all; make it easiest on yourselves and F&f. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:00, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Converted to en-GB as Jo-Jo originally asked. ComplexRational (talk) 22:15, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

MOS stuff

[edit]
  • I know MOS pages are long and unwieldy, but from what I can gather in regards to units from MOS:UNITNAMES, I think we should consistently do the following:
    • Always use figures (including 0–9) unless the unit is fully written out (e.g. kilometres)
    • Make sure every usage is grammatically correct – when the unit used as an adjective, the unit should be singular and they should be joined by a hyphen (e.g. five kilometres (3.1 mi) long → five-kilometre (3.1 mi) long)
    • Abbreviations should be consistently used after a unit is fully written out on its first occurrence
  • Someone will need to do a thorough check for commas in accordance with BrE rules.
Agree. I can't help with British commas. If we get the MOS basics that affect grammar and give a consistent usage of numbers and abbreviations above dealt with, I can easily run through and add minor things like NBSPs. Earlier, there was a problem distinguishing hyphens and dashes, but I think that is sorted now. At any rate, I can check that sort of thing pre-FAC2. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:13, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Prose (WIAFA 1a)

[edit]
  • The volcano can be reached on paved roads that come to the town of Andahua– needs to be rewritten, "come" does not work here (we are not in Andahua) and "go" is not much better
  • A number of villages surround the volcano – I do not understand why this list of miscellaneous villages is present at all, much less why they're ordered clockwise
    Does replacing "come to" with "through" work better? The main reason why the ordering is clockwise is to give a bit of orientation to readers where what is, and a list of villages around a (dormant) volcano is pertinent information. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 21:17, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, "through" definitely reads better. I agree that it is pertinent information, but I think it would be smoother only to mention the largest or otherwise most significant villages – hypothetically, a town of 100,000 is much more likely to garner attention than a town of 1000 unless there is some special significance. If this list is indeed exhaustive, it may be acceptable, but I still think trimming to the most important sites (perhaps with the remainder in a footnote) would make better prose. ComplexRational (talk) 00:45, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hrm. After review, it seems like that the map in Forget 2008 is the only source that discusses towns around Coropuna and the only two names that appear outside of it are Alma and Pampacolca - and they are not discussed in terms of being villages around Coropuna, but in terms of places that have a weather station and in terms of a homonymous district, respectively. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 14:18, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • a 20 km (12 mi) long ridge with an east–west trend – I would condense to "a 20 km (12 mi) east–west ridge"; I think this is less verbose if we're only talking about the direction; if this change is made, check other uses of "trend" to maintain consistency.
    Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 21:17, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lahars are dangerous phenomena owing to their high speed and density, causing large scale destruction and fatalities. – from this, readers unfamiliar with the subject still will not know what lahars are. I added a link, but a one-sentence explanation would be helpful here.
    As advised here, I've put in a parenthetical. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 21:17, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Clockwise around Coropuna, these include – an indiscriminate yet incomprehensive list without clear context; can this list be reduced to mention only the most significant ones?
    Will check this one tomorrow. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 21:17, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • The ice cap also features ice falls and dangerous lakes. Mudflows (lahars) originated from the ice cap and left deposits at the bottom of valleys. – dangerous has a non-neutral connotation (so I recommend elaborating more neutrally on what makes these lakes dangerous or removing altogether), and this transition from present to past tense reads rather awkwardly (I'd reorder to something like "There are also deposits resulting from lahars originating from the ice cap...").

We can start with this – more comments will follow tomorrow. ComplexRational (talk) 01:44, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Removed the first sentence completely. Regarding the second one, the tense issue to me indicates a flow issue; that sentence should probably be somewhere else in the article when I wrote it but nothing better came to mind. I've also added an explanation for "serac". Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 21:17, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
suggestion: lahar (debris and mud flows) ... doesn't need a sentence, the reader can get the idea without having to click out. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:10, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
True, something along the lines of that short parenthetical definition would also suffice in conjunction with the link. ComplexRational (talk) 02:35, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Similar for serac, IIRC. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:39, 27 December 2019 (UTC). PS, I see Outriggr, a competent copyeditor, is also peeking in. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:43, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hi everyone, I can't help too much with EngVar, Names, or External links. I can with the narrative. I'll try to find time for a section here, a section there, ... It may take time. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 22:04, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • This process created U-shaped valleys such as Buenavista, Cospanja and Tuilaqui on the southern flank, and Chaque, Mapa Mayo, Río Blanco, Torcom and Ullulo on the northern slopes. – if none of these locations are linked or significant, I think it's fine to generalize along the lines of my comment above.
    I've rewritten this, but I think that citing a few examples is fine. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 13:12, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • and additional lakes lie on the flanks of Coropuna including Laguna Pucaylla on its northeastern side. – if Laguna Pucaylla is the largest, most significant, or a prominent feature, I'd advise making note of that.
    Seems like these might be the most prominent lakes; as with the before item I was thinking that citing a few examples would make sense. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 13:12, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Surrounding terrain (section) – the first two paragraphs seem to be describing almost the same thing (deep canyons along the edges); can these sentences be combined?
    Going to be somewhat difficult as the first describes the volcano proper and the second the surrounding landscape. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 13:12, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • The most commonly cited maximum height for the volcano is 6,377 m (20,922 ft) – I'm generally not a big fan of notes listing refs—especially this many as it gives an impression of WP:OVERCITE— so if possible, could you replace note [b] with a source that directly states it's the most commonly cited height (e.g. a textbook or review article)? If not, you can leave it as is for now, but I'd be interested if there is a way later to trim the citations while keeping them consistent with the article's claims. I'd think there are even more sources for all quoted values out there, so reducing to the most reputable or commonly cited sources would eventually be the way to go.
  • Wrote a response in the section below. Regarding some of the problems mentioned before, INGEMMET appears to be acting up so I can't resolve them straightaway. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 14:18, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • In 1910 it was believed that — by whom?
    'twas by Adolph Francis Alphonse Bandelier, author of the source. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 14:18, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Can this be worked directly into the prose, especially if it was his belief? (The current formulation uses WP:WEASEL words.) ComplexRational (talk) 17:49, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@ComplexRational:That's not easy. It's not just his belief, Hiram Bingham also thought the same and the source just an example. Do you think there is a non-weasely formulation? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 20:12, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm. If this was a widespread belief, I'd be willing to give it a pass as rewording it won't be easy either. In that case, maybe one or two additional sources (such as Bingham if that is well-known) would suffice to demonstrate that this isn't deliberately a vague attribution. ComplexRational (talk) 20:25, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Added the main one. I see from that source that Bingham's opinion was based on Bandelier's map, which makes this a bit dicey. Also, the publication year 2010 is almost certainly wrong. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 21:41, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some have names, such as the 6,377 m (20,922 ft) high ... and Yana Ranra in the eastern sector.
    • "Some have names" can be cut; the most significant or highest peaks can be introduced in a smoother way (why is the fact that they are named relevant or necessary here?). If they were unnamed, they would then be remote (of lesser significance?) or another description would be needed, but this is not the case anywhere so it is an unnecessary description.
    • When listed out, I believe "high" is redundant as the units are unambiguous and it doesn't sound right.
    • Are there sources for the heights all these peaks? If so, I recommend adding every value to establish consistency; a reader would be left wanting when reading the heights for some peaks but not others.
    You'll be surprised, but apparently not all of them have names. I did a minimal rewrite in this edit, you might want to double check. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 14:18, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
...still more to come. ComplexRational (talk) 00:45, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize for the long wait; I anticipate having more time this week to review and reply. Here goes:

  • In 1955, the ice limits were located at elevations of 4,900 m (16,100 ft) on the southern and at 5,400 m (17,700 ft) on the northern flank. – is this intended to compare to the present day, or do the most precise measurements date back to 1955? Either way, I'd add a sentence providing the additional context (most likely a comparison to reflect the presumed effects of global warming?).
The update looks good; I'm neutral on including the old value here but would definitely note this idea in the section discussing climate change.
  • Grey-coloured, fresh moraines – if "grey-coloured" is part of the description, I recommend moving it to the previous sentence with the rest of it.
If they are indeed separate, and this is a description for a second set, I advise removing the comma.
  • In the Cordillera Blanca it has been estimated that – can we attribute this directly in the prose (e.g. "a 2018 study", like the last sentence) or otherwise eliminate the inherent vagueness?

ComplexRational (talk) 02:51, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

For this, if we're sure this comes from Markand & Seltzer, 2003, I'd make it an in-text attribution, e.g. "a 2003 study by Markand and Seltzer (introduce if possible) estimates that..."
​ComplexRational (talk) 02:41, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@ComplexRational:Don't mind the delay; I haven't exactly been working much lately either. The only measurements reported in that source date from 1955; obviously we cannot put that in present tense because of the glacial retreat. I've updated this part a bit; do we want to keep the old value as well as comparator? (The effects of climate change are discussed elsewhere, so the flow is an issue if we do). Regarding the moraines, the source is written in a way that makes it sound like they are not talking about the same two moraines with both statements. On the third, I need a bit of feedback - the source does refer to a third source with the formulation "In theCordillera Blanca, glaciers have been estimated to provideup to 30% of annual runoff within some watersheds (Markand Seltzer,2003)." I am not sure if this is better formulated without the passive voice or by in-text attribution of that source. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 21:07, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
​ I've undertaken a rewrite of the Geology section to break up some clauses and use better formulations, in this edit. I didn't add anything about the 1955-2001 retreat mainly because I couldn't find a good place to fit it in. Removed the comma, although I wonder if this sentence can be split up in some fashion. I've put in the in-text thing. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:05, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Break

[edit]
  • ah, the master of edit summaries shows up! Yo-man is a semi-retired FA writer, whose edit summaries delight, and whose copyediting advice is always helpful ;) He also speaks Spanish. His samples are good ones that should be searched out in the rest of the article. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:43, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Har. Something I need to take on myself at some point, at Quelccaya Ice Cap, African humid period, Laguna del Maule (volcano), Huaynaputina, Uturuncu and El Tatio (articles which I plan to send to FAC in the future). Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:51, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Har, har ... the last time Yomangani showed up at a "real" medical article I was intending to bring to FAC, he used our old trick of inserting funny inline comments into the text where my dreadful prose needed help, and he was unembarrassed to point out my dreadful prose. (On the other hand, I am known to search every article he touches for "the the" and "an an" :). And then some now-banned WPMED type who was lacking in sense of humor went through and ... well, was a jerk to Yo-man. And that article didn't go to FAC because I had seen enough of WPMED's behavior! Anyway, just alerting you that it used to be very common to insert inline comments rather than waste bandwidth on talk, in case Yo-man decides to continue copyediting. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:23, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Like the comments hidden in the source of African humid period and User:Jo-Jo Eumerus/1669 Etna eruption? That's an old new technique that I am acquainted with; much less complicated and ugly than maintenance tags. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:40, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, that's it ... Yo-man often copyedits with that technique. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:45, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I nearly always edit using inlines on the the rare occasions I visit. I find it is an an excellent way of avoiding making any really useful contributions or hard decisions. I didn't realise you were actively rewriting when I edited (I think I stumbled over it while trying to find where Sandy had mentioned me according to the the little alert meter thingy), so I'll leave it at least until you think you've finished. Yomanganitalk 15:23, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I have revised one of the sections for prose. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:23, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    PS I'm perplexed by the banner up top about this article being written in British English. How does a mountain (or its range, or continent), that has no significant history of British inroads on land or in writing gets to have its article on WP written in British English? Given that Hiram Bingham III was the first European to scale the summit(s) and that most of the English language literature is American, I feel the language of composition should be changed to American English. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:30, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    However, it was written by me mostly in BrE, and the fact that the first reported (not actual; it's well known that Inka people climbed high mountains long before the Spanish set foot in the New World, and while we haven't direct evidence of an early ascent of Coropuna it was probably first done by them) ascent was by an American is not enough of a tie to justify demanding AmE writing. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 19:11, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh, OK. That's fine. I didn't realize you had started it. So there's a precedent. Thank you. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 19:35, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jo-Jo Eumerus, I lost track of progress here. Is it time yet for me to do a read-through? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 09:43, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

SandyGeorgiaI think it is. I've been busy IRL with exam prep and on Wikipedia with User:Jo-Jo Eumerus/1669 Etna eruption (turns out that writing a Wikipedia article with print sources takes much more effort than without) but I can get some time for this as well I think. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:04, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I have a funeral today, but will get on this later this week. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 10:05, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Jo-Jo Eumerus I just peeked in, and it looks like we're not ready for me to do a read-through yet. I still see the unfinished Notes string, with the new text (that needs wordsmithing) not yet in. I am in the midst of a major update at Tourette syndrome, which needs my undivided attention for several more days; please ping me when I should come back here for a read-through. Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:21, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
SandyGeorgiaActually, the reason why the Notes string is still there is because the new text isn't yet in. I am thinking of putting a shortened version of the new text in. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:35, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

String of numbers in Notes

[edit]

I did one sample here, that explains my objection to the string of numbers in Notes. Please revert if this is worse. But I am still concerned that it is SYNTHy and that there might be a better way to formulate the entire thing. If this format works, I'll clean up the rest to be in agreement. Let me know what you all think, and if there is a better way to formulate the controversy/differences expressed in the Notes section, and I can revert or continue. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:03, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Rather than "According to," it should probably be: "cited in ..." in footnote b; "referred to in ..." footnote c; and "estimated in ..." in footnote d. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 05:47, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This format works (I also like F&f's idea), but as I noted above, I would prefer a source directly asserting that it's the most cited value, or only the most significant or tertiary sources to avoid WP:OVERCITE (too many unnecessary citations saying the same thing). Let's first see if that's possible. ComplexRational (talk) 11:50, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I've made a list of the sources and supported elevations:
Extended content

If we want to go with the most authoritative sources one possibility would be to use the Global Volcanism Program - probably the most "secondary" of the sources, as I suspect that most of 'em don't do their own research and simply re-cite other sources with little double checking - and Biggar 2015 for an alternative estimate. SandyGeorgia's proposal also merits consideration, though; I can draft some text for either approach. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 13:49, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It's not really my proposal; it was to show specifically the problem with there being no text in the note. My preference is more in line with ComplexRational, and I hope all of these strings of notes can be sorted by changing the prose.
  • The Global Volcanism Program and others, such as Biggar <or whatever> state the height is X based on Y, while other sources such as Z give the height as A based on B.
I think it best to avoid the whole "most commonly cited", as that gets into OR. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:11, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I know, but the thing is that not all elevations are cited equally frequently, and WP:BALANCE indicates that one needs to factor in relative frequency rather than treat them the same way. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 13:12, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Extended content

Coropuna is the largest[1] and highest volcano in Peru, the highest mountain in the Cordillera Ampato[2] and the third-highest mountain in Peru.[3][4] The highest point of Coropuna reaches an elevation of 6,377 metres (20,922 ft)[a] [25][26][27] on the northwestern dome of the mountain,[25][28] which is also known as Coropuna Casulla.[11]

Estimates on the height of Coropuna have changed over time. In the 19th century, it was one of the candidates for "highest mountain in Peru", with mountains in the Cordillera Blanca making up the other candidates, with the Mapa del Perú (Map of Peru) of Antonio Raimondi giving an estimated height of 6,949 m (22,799 ft).[29] In 1910 it was believed that the volcano was over 7,000 m (23,000 ft) high and thus the highest mountain in South America ahead of Aconcagua,[30][31] although a North American expedition during the preceding year had determined that Coropuna was not the highest mountain in Peru as it only found an elevation of 6,615 m (21,703 ft) and Huascaran is higher than this.[32] Varying snow elevations might also lead to varying height estimates.[20]

Coropuna has several summits (up to ten according to one count)[33] which exceed 6,000 m (20,000 ft) elevation,[17] plus a 5,623 m (18,448 ft) northern summit.[11] Those with individual names are the 6,377 m (20,922 ft) high northern Coropuna Casulla, the 6,171 m (20,246 ft) high western Nevado Pallacocha, the 6,161 m (20,213 ft) high central Coropuna Central II,[34] Escalera in the western sector of the volcano, Paiche in the central sector,[35] Coropuna Este[36] and Yana Ranra in the eastern sector.[35]

References

  1. ^ Venturelli et al. 1978, p. 214.
  2. ^ a b Campos 2015, p. 2.
  3. ^ Cite error: The named reference Trawick2003 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  4. ^ Cite error: The named reference MINCETUR2019 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  5. ^ Forget et al. 2008, p. 16. sfn error: multiple targets (2×): CITEREFForgetThouretKuentzFontugne2008 (help)
  6. ^ García Zúñiga, Mariño Salazar & Valdivia Humerez 2018, p. 117.
  7. ^ Kuentz et al. 2007, p. 1764.
  8. ^ Palenque et al. 2018, p. 101.
  9. ^ de Silva & Francis 1990, p. 292. sfn error: multiple targets (2×): CITEREFde_SilvaFrancis1990 (help)
  10. ^ Úbeda Palenque 2013, p. 24.
  11. ^ a b c Valenzuela Ortiz & Núñez Juárez 2001, p. 3. sfn error: multiple targets (3×): CITEREFValenzuela_OrtizNúñez_Juárez2001 (help)
  12. ^ Vela et al. 2016, p. 9. sfn error: multiple targets (2×): CITEREFVelaCáceresCalderónChijcheapaza2016 (help)
  13. ^ Kuentz, Ledru & Thouret 2011, p. 1216.
  14. ^ Thouret et al. 2002, p. 3.
  15. ^ Bullard 1962, p. 444.
  16. ^ a b Cuber, Panajew & Gałaś 2015, p. 63. sfn error: multiple targets (2×): CITEREFCuberPanajewGałaś2015 (help)
  17. ^ a b Silverio & Jaquet 2012, p. 5878.
  18. ^ Schotterer et al. 2009, p. 27.
  19. ^ Marinque et al. 2018, p. 175.
  20. ^ a b Cite error: The named reference Biggar2015 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  21. ^ Bromley et al. 2011, p. 38.
  22. ^ a b Weibel, Frangipane-Gysel & Hunziker 1978, p. 245. sfn error: multiple targets (2×): CITEREFWeibelFrangipane-GyselHunziker1978 (help)
  23. ^ Silverio, Herold & Peduzzi 2010, p. 314.
  24. ^ Bromley et al. 2011, p. 305.
  25. ^ a b Cite error: The named reference GVP was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  26. ^ Cite error: The named reference MdA2019 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  27. ^ Cite error: The named reference IGdP2018 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  28. ^ Valenzuela Ortiz & Núñez Juárez 2001, p. 35. sfn error: multiple targets (3×): CITEREFValenzuela_OrtizNúñez_Juárez2001 (help)
  29. ^ Wise 2004, p. 97.
  30. ^ Cite error: The named reference Bingham2010 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  31. ^ Cite error: The named reference Bandelier1910 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  32. ^ Wise 2004, p. 98.
  33. ^ Weibel, Frangipane-Gysel & Hunziker 1978, p. 246. sfn error: multiple targets (2×): CITEREFWeibelFrangipane-GyselHunziker1978 (help)
  34. ^ Cite error: The named reference Hernandez2013 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  35. ^ a b Cite error: The named reference Mapa2017 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  36. ^ Bromley et al. 2011, p. 308.
​​I've written a draft text for the elevation sections; what do people think? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 19:37, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I made two minor changes in note [a] and one to the prose. This definitely eases my concerns about OVERCITE while still representing the breadth of sources, and it is much more readable. I can't see all the refs here, but would I be correct to assume that [25][26][27] are tertiary sources or indicate that this is the most accepted value?
I'd like to hear a second opinion, but this looks like a pretty good start. ComplexRational (talk) 00:54, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
They are probably the "most secondary" sources (I have always found it a bit hard to apply the primary-secondary thing to natural science sources); unfortunately I haven't been able to find any "this is the most commonly cited height" source. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 21:26, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@SandyGeorgia:? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 21:45, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Jo-Jo: Sorry, I didn't notice this draft. It's a great effort. I don't think though that you need so much detail. At least for the first draft, use a general textbook, I'd say. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 22:12, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
PS You have 21 citations for eight sentences. That is probably too much, too intimidating, for a reader. See if you can halve that number. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 22:21, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, this is a silly thing to be hung up on, but there must be a better way to do it. I know you are worried about staying true to sources, but pick the best one and cite it, then say a (second best one) says something different. We only have to tell our readers that differences exist in the sources; we don't have to give them every source. It comes across as some kind of highly debated, seriously controversial matter, which turns the molehill into a mountain. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:13, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

OK, last draft text:

Extended content

Coropuna is the largest[1] and highest volcano in Peru, the highest mountain in the Cordillera Ampato[2] and the third-highest mountain in Peru.[3][4] The highest point of Coropuna reaches an elevation of 6,377 metres (20,922 ft)[5][6][7] on the northwestern dome of the mountain,[5][8] which is also known as Coropuna Casulla.[9] Mountaineering sources also cite an elevation of 6,425 metres (21,079 ft) for the El Toro summit,[10][11][11] which would make Coropuna the 22nd highest mountain in the Andes.[12][b]

Estimates on the height of Coropuna have changed over time. In the 19th century, it was one of the candidates for "highest mountain in Peru", with mountains in the Cordillera Blanca making up the other candidates, with the Mapa del Perú (Map of Peru) of Antonio Raimondi giving an estimated height of 6,949 m (22,799 ft).[19] In 1910 it was believed that the volcano was over 7,000 m (23,000 ft) high and thus the highest mountain in South America ahead of Aconcagua,[20][21] although a North American expedition during the preceding year had determined that Coropuna was not the highest mountain in Peru as it only found an elevation of 6,615 m (21,703 ft) and Huascaran is higher than this.[22] Varying snow elevations might also lead to varying height estimates.[10]

Coropuna has several summits (up to ten according to one count)[23] which exceed 6,000 m (20,000 ft) elevation,[24] plus a 5,623 m (18,448 ft) northern summit.[9] Those with individual names are the 6,377 m (20,922 ft) high northern Coropuna Casulla, the 6,171 m (20,246 ft) high western Nevado Pallacocha, the 6,161 m (20,213 ft) high central Coropuna Central II,[25] Escalera in the western sector of the volcano, Paiche in the central sector,[26] Coropuna Este[27] and Yana Ranra in the eastern sector.[26]

References

  1. ^ Venturelli et al. 1978, p. 214.
  2. ^ a b Campos 2015, p. 2.
  3. ^ Cite error: The named reference Trawick2003 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  4. ^ Cite error: The named reference MINCETUR2019 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  5. ^ a b Cite error: The named reference GVP was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  6. ^ Cite error: The named reference MdA2019 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  7. ^ Cite error: The named reference IGdP2018 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  8. ^ Valenzuela Ortiz & Núñez Juárez 2001, p. 35. sfn error: multiple targets (3×): CITEREFValenzuela_OrtizNúñez_Juárez2001 (help)
  9. ^ a b Valenzuela Ortiz & Núñez Juárez 2001, p. 3. sfn error: multiple targets (3×): CITEREFValenzuela_OrtizNúñez_Juárez2001 (help)
  10. ^ a b Cite error: The named reference Biggar2015 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  11. ^ a b American Alpine Club (1990). The American alpine journal. The Mountaineers Books. p. 328. ISBN 978-1-933056-37-1.
  12. ^ Cuber, Panajew & Gałaś 2015, p. 63. sfn error: multiple targets (2×): CITEREFCuberPanajewGałaś2015 (help)
  13. ^ Kuentz, Ledru & Thouret 2011, p. 1216.
  14. ^ Thouret et al. 2002, p. 3.
  15. ^ Bromley et al. 2011, p. 38.
  16. ^ a b Weibel, Frangipane-Gysel & Hunziker 1978, p. 245. sfn error: multiple targets (2×): CITEREFWeibelFrangipane-GyselHunziker1978 (help)
  17. ^ Silverio, Herold & Peduzzi 2010, p. 314.
  18. ^ Bromley et al. 2011, p. 305.
  19. ^ Wise 2004, p. 97.
  20. ^ Cite error: The named reference Bingham2010 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  21. ^ Cite error: The named reference Bandelier1910 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  22. ^ Wise 2004, p. 98.
  23. ^ Weibel, Frangipane-Gysel & Hunziker 1978, p. 246. sfn error: multiple targets (2×): CITEREFWeibelFrangipane-GyselHunziker1978 (help)
  24. ^ Silverio & Jaquet 2012, p. 5878.
  25. ^ Cite error: The named reference Hernandez2013 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  26. ^ a b Cite error: The named reference Mapa2017 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  27. ^ Bromley et al. 2011, p. 308.
​This is specifically to address SandyGeorgia's point about too many references. I couldn't find any well-suited "general textbook" - and in my experience, these tend to be too undetailed/vague to be good sources for a Wikipedia article - however. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 11:05, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I like that formulation, and don't feel overwhelmed now by the citations. If others like the formulation, though, it needs some serious wordsmithing. I'll hold off until we see if others agree with the formulation: ComplexRational? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:46, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
We'll deal with the exact wording later, but this eases my OVERCITE concerns even further without raising red flags anywhere else. I think we can work with this. ComplexRational (talk) 23:34, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
​​I've put a shortened version in, to get this moving again. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 12:23, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I like it so far...it looks short and sweet. I'll give it a more thorough readthrough hopefully sometime in the next week. ComplexRational (talk) 00:52, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note A

[edit]
Extended content

While we're on Notes, Jo-Jo, why do we need to list the other three? (That is, why did you not like this?) Does the reader really need to know the names of the other three? They can find them in a Wikilink if they want to delve deeper.

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:15, 28 December 2019 (UTC) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:15, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Prose check

[edit]

I picked one section, to see if we were ready to go back to FAC.

  • During the Last Glacial Maximum (LGM) 25,000–20,000 years ago, valley glaciers on Coropuna were considerably longer than today and occupied glacial valleys up to 300 m (980 ft) deep and seven km (4.3 mi) long.
Valley glaciers ... occupied glacial valleys, redundant. We should be able to fix that redundancy by just deleting the second glacial. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:38, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I've rearranged this one. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 14:06, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The glaciers formed tall moraines with as much as 100 m (330 ft) relief, eight km (5.0 mi) in length, 5–10 m (16–33 ft) in width at the crest and a cover of boulders and gravel; they include both lateral moraines and terminal moraines where outlet glaciers ended.
I"m not sure how to unwind this; one gets lost in the clauses and numbers, and it's hard to tell what is what. Maybe something like:
  • The glaciers had a cover of boulders and gravel and formed tall moraines, and both lateral and terminal moraines where outlet glaciers ended. At the crest, these moraines were as much as 100 m (330 ft) high, eight km (5.0 mi) long, and 5–10 m (16–33 ft) wide.
Perhaps that kind of construct will help the reader get the point, without getting lost in a sea of numbers. Another problem here is mixing eight (spelled out) with 5–10 (digits); numbers should be consistent within a list. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:38, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Your formulation is better than the preceding; I've put it in. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 14:06, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • On the northern flank, moraine systems have been observed in the Santiago, Ullulo, Keaña, Queñua Ranra, Cuncaicha, Pommulca and Huajra Huire valleys, while the southeastern flank was covered by glaciers in the Yanaorco, Viques, Cospanja, Buena Vista Este, Buena Vista Oeste and Huasi valleys. Rock bars occur in some glacial valleys on the southern and southwestern side of the volcano.
What is a rock bar? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:38, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Added a link. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 14:06, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are large cirques around Cerro Cuncaicha. The LGM ice cap had an area of at least 365 km2 (141 sq mi), with glaciers descending to 3,780–4,540 m (12,400–14,900 ft) elevation, down to the north and the west, probably due to airflow-mediated variations in sublimation.
Again, one gets lost in numbers and clauses. How about:
  • The LGM ice cap had an area of at least 365 km2 (141 sq mi). Glaciers descended to the north and west to 3,780–4,540 m (12,400–14,900 ft) elevation, probably due to airflow-mediated variations in sublimation.
    That was a little inaccurate, so I've done a different rewrite. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 14:06, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The longest glacier reached a length of 12 km (7.5 mi) in the Quebrada Ullulo.
    • Why not just, "The longest glacier, at 12 km (7.5 mi), was in the Quebrada Ullulo." Also, this is longer than the longest valley mentioned in the previous paragraph (seven km), so there is a contradiction here.
  • The growth of the ice cap has been explained by a temperature drop of about 4.5–5.5 °C (8.1–9.9 °F) assuming constant precipitation and a 750 m (2,460 ft) decrease in elevation of the equilibrium line altitude.
750-m decrease needs to be hyphenated, so better to recast the entire sentence. Why are we using the highly technical "equilibrium line altitude" instead of just saying, a lower snow line?
Unfortunately, a snowline is not exactly the same thing as an equilibrium line altitude; the former simply separates snow-covered aspects of a mountain from non-snow covered ones and is seasonally variable, while ELA is a mathematical construct that describes the behaviour of glaciers. I've recast this sentence. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 14:06, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The retreat of these glaciers commenced between 12,000 and 11,000 years ago.

So, these are mostly suggestion/questions, but work at the clause level is needed. The lengthy clauses, combined with numbers and converts, make the topic seem harder to digest than it should be. This is one section only; let's keep working. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:38, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I don't think this is quite ready for FAC just yet. The problem is that I tend to (try to) assemble clauses in topical sentences, as I don't consider strings of short sentences good writing. I'll see after this tomorrow. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 20:50, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Halocene section

[edit]

Picking another section:

No eruptions of Coropuna during historical or modern times are known and the volcano was formerly considered to be long-extinct. However, young-looking ʻaʻā lava or block lava flows were erupted during the Holocene and in part overlie late-glacial moraines. Their vents are now hidden beneath glacier ice and the flows have been affected by later glacial advances. These lava flows are found on the west–northwest, south–southeast and northeast side of the mountain:

  • A northwesterly lava flow which is Coropuna's longest lava flow occupies the Cerro Sepulturayoc valley and runs for 8.5 km (5.3 mi). It has been dated to about 6,000 years ago, but research published in 2019 has suggested it may have erupted somewhat earlier, during the Late Glacial period.
  • A northwesterly lava flow – Coropuna's longest at 8.5 km (5.3 mi) – occupies the Cerro Sepulturayoc valley. It has been dated to about 6,000 years ago, but research published in 2019 has suggested it may have erupted somewhat earlier, during the Late Glacial period.
  • A four kilometres (2.5 mi) long southeasterly flow lies in the Cospanja valley and is either 1,100 ± 100 or 700 ± 200 years old, the latter age being derived from cosmogenic isotope dating. It was probably formed during a single eruption.
  • See in edit mode the use of nowrap instead of nbsp, to keep the plus/minus constructs together. A-4 km-long flow requires hyphenation, so better to recast the sentence.
  • A southeasterly flow lies in the Cospanja valley and is either 1,100 ± 100 or 700 ± 200 years old, the latter age being derived from cosmogenic isotope dating. It was probably formed during a single eruption and is four kilometres (2.5 mi) long.
  • A dark, young-looking five kilometres (3.1 mi) long northeasterly lava flow is located in the Queñua Ranra valley. Its deposition was preceded by the eruption of lava bombs that cover the valley and by the production of a lahar that advanced 14 km (8.7 mi) from its source. The eruption took place about 2,100 ± 200 years ago according to cosmogenic isotope dating. Whether a secondary lava flow in the same valley occurred at the same time or later is not clear, as that flow has not yet been dated.
  • Again, see use of nowrap on plus/minus. Avoid "located in". Avoid eruption of production of, etc. And, a 5-km-long flow requires hyphenation, so better to recast the sentence.
  • A dark, young-looking lava flow runs northeasterly in the Queñua Ranra valley and is five kilometres (3.1 mi) long. It was formed when a lava bomb erupted that covered the valley and produced a lahar that advanced 14 km (8.7 mi). The eruption took place about 2,100 ± 200 years ago according to cosmogenic isotope dating. Whether a secondary lava flow in the same valley occurred at the same time or later is not clear, as that flow has not yet been dated.
  • Recast these three so far, except the last where the alternative version was factually incorrect; I've done a variant on this. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 14:17, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The ages of the flows indicate an eastward shift in activity and the southeasterly and northeasterly flows may have been erupted within 500 years from the same fissure, while the eruption of the northwesterly flow might be a consequence of the retreat of the ice cap.
  • Needs an nbsp for 500 years, too long, with too many clauses (what Tony1 called a snake).
  • The ages of the flows indicate an eastward shift in activity. The southeasterly and northeasterly flows may have been erupted within 500 years from the same fissure, while the eruption of the northwesterly flow might be a consequence of the retreat of the ice cap.
  • These lava flows are the most recent manifestation of volcanic activity and they imply that Coropuna is still active; it is thus considered to be a dormant volcano, rather than an extinct one. There is no evidence of Holocene tephras in peat bog drill cores and volcanism at Coropuna since the last ice age has been primarily effusive.
  • Why "imply"? Indicating? Suggesting? These lava flows are the most recent manifestation of volcanic activity, indicating that Coropuna is still active; it is thus considered to be a dormant volcano, rather than an extinct one. There is no evidence of Holocene tephras in peat bog drill cores and volcanism at Coropuna since the last ice age has been primarily effusive.

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:54, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@SandyGeorgia:Implemented the "too long" part, but I am not sure how "indicating" or "suggesting" is better. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 14:17, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Jo-Jo, I am not concerned that you respond to each issue; they are generally just samples of how long clauses might be avoided and wording might be made more accessible. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:58, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
​ I've attempted to condense the eruption history section a little. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 21:07, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Progress discussion

[edit]

So I did some rewrites a few weeks ago here and here and I wonder if they are on the right track. Also, are there sections which are "completed" (i.e ready for FAC)? I want to know which ones still need work. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 11:21, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take a look at them for prose, after my morning coffee, that is. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:30, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
These seem to be single edits rather than revisions. I can't really review them, as I'm limited to correcting only the changes presented in the diff. I prefer to have a section which you have completed, in whatever form you have done so. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 22:52, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Jo-Jo, I have been attempting to take small sections at a time and demonstrate prose issues at the clause level. I suspect that what is happening here is that, in your honest effort to stay very true to the sources and write a comprehensive article, the article has ended up with too much information packed into sentences, some of which wind on and on, with the average reader losing the significance. Part of the art of writing is knowing not only what to add, but what to leave out. (When in doubt, leave it out.) If information must be added for comprehensiveness, then perhaps separate the general thought from the statistics, so the reader doesn't have to navigate around so many numbers and layers of clauses.
I again picked one section, and found:
  • The region is characterised by high plateaus separated by deep canyons, including some of the world's deepest gorges that reach depths of 600–3,000 m (2,000–9,800 ft). Apart from river erosion, giant landslides have affected the Altiplano below Coropuna, such as the Chuquibamba landslide, which took place over the last 120,000 years in the form of multiple collapse events within a fault-controlled basin.
  • ??? High plateaus are separated by some of the world's deepest gorges, reaching depths of 600–3,000 m (2,000–9,800 ft).
  • How does the next sentence relate to this one? Because of erosion (deep gorges), but the reader has to figure that out ... it doesn't transition naturally. How are landslides related to deep canyons?
  • ?? River erosion has caused high plateaus that are separated by some of the world's deepest gorges, reaching depths of 600–3,000 m (2,000–9,800 ft). The Altiplano below Coropuna is characterized by the effects of giant landslides that took place over the last 120,000 years. Multiple collapse events within a fault-controlled basin (what is that and why does it matter in this sentence?) such as the Chuquibamba landslide ... ???
These are only ideas of things that need a fresh look throughout. Sentences and clauses wind on and lose the reader. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:10, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nicely explained, Sandy. Jo-Jo, The way I look at it is that in technical articles, one must be able to summarize technical data into heuristics that are comprehensible to a layperson. I don't believe that the heuristics themselves need to be cited to a source—although it would be good if they could—but they do require a high-level or low-res understanding of the data. That, in turn, means leaving out the inessentials, as Sandy explains. Otherwise, what we will end up having is not a narrative, but a list. It is one reason that other encyclopedias, reviews or surveys, or tertiary accounts, should be read as carefully at the journal articles. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 23:43, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again, I was looking at the religion section. Even there, you sometimes have three citations in a sentence. Could you please rewrite the section with no more than one to a sentence? Here is something I wrote ten or more years ago: Ganges#Ganges_in_classical_Indian_iconography. Do you notice that most sentences have only one source? It is much easier to paraphrase that way: you can piggy-back on the author's text, judiciously amending it, of course. But when there are many sources, and you are attempting to craft one sentence, the task is much harder. Compounding the problem is that you are using only journal articles, and those are notoriously jargon-ridden. Please find some books to cite. :) It will make life simpler all around. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 03:27, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Huh. I think that I suspect that what is happening here is that, in your honest effort to stay very true to the sources and write a comprehensive article, the article has ended up with too much information packed into sentences, some of which wind on and on, with the average reader losing the significance. Part of the art of writing is knowing not only what to add, but what to leave out. does articulate the problem more clearly than the examples of the problem did. I am guessing the problem is to find a balance between enough information per sentence/paragraph to keep the article comprehensive and catching for those readers who don't want just a summary and between it being "well-written: its prose is engaging and of a professional standard".

Regarding the religion section, that's been a problem for some time. I think the issue here is that Coropuna is important in a religious context but the sources are - unlike those cited at Ganges#Ganges in classical Indian iconography - too dispersed to write something comprehensive w/o using more than one source per sentence or writing a number of short sentences. And footnote salad notwithstanding, I don't think that is good writing. I've been looking at books and they generally don't help beyond what the journal articles say. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:37, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Here is another thing you could do, if you don't mind doing it. Add a little quote from the cited source in each citation. For example, last summer I had to do this when the India page's lead was being rewritten. (The rationale for it was to demonstrate transparency, and that no political perspective was being advanced unduly.) See here. That way, we will all know what salient content underlies the footnotes and can take a stab at summarizing it. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:47, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies for my late and shorter response. I'll check the rewritten sections for prose later, but I can say now that certain sections could use expansion (to not leave readers with only one or two sentences, as that makes them seem short and superficial, but also keeping in mind F&f's points) or rewrites (mainly converting bulleted lists into prose; I would consider that more "of a professional standard"). The article also will, at some point, need top-to-bottom copyediting before FAC2; I'd be willing to help with that.
Two of the sections that most catch my attention are § Vegetation, fauna, and agriculture (short bullets, could be more reader-friendly and split in a way that more clearly presents all three aspects given in the heading) and § Religion (mostly described above, but I feel most inclined to ask why these examples are more significant; these should either be expanded upon or reduced only to the essential information). ComplexRational (talk) 19:48, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@ComplexRational:That's a good question about the religion section, the answer is that these are the legends which are explicitly mentioned in the sources. The reason I didn't go into much more detail is because the sources themselves are somewhat spartan (or over detailed) and would invite WP:CLOP issues if expounded upon too much. And I wasn't certain if it's actually better to describe such individual examples in great detail. Also, can you take a look at the examples that Sandy mentioned above? I did look at it and I am not sure if the problem there is actually resolvable. Sources don't discuss things like steep gorges being prone to landsliding in detail and IMO it is actually an appropriate level of detail for the information available. But that might be just me. In general, I think that topics like this one tend to suffer from the sparse research that is written on them; not all facets have been thoroughly researched. I'll also see about bulleted lists and the vegetation section, but the preceding points need consideration. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 13:07, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@SandyGeorgia: and anyone else who this might concern. Over the last two days, I've been wondering if this article improvement effort has ever a chance of succeeding. It's probably also a matter of lack of time on all our parts, but it seems like even after over a month it's still not FAC ready. Yes, writing FA-level stuff takes a long time but having this effort sitting around is a little dispiriting.

If it's not, though, I am thinking that I don't see how the religion section can be done better than what it currently is. Simply put, without cherry picking or original research it's always going to be a lot of information with many sources for only so many sentences and the only way to make 'em more readable is by shuffling all citations to the end of the sentence. On the details question (and somewhat ancillary, on the "heuristics" argument), while the specific example of the "surrounding terrain" sentence can be shortened by stripping unnecessary detail, I think that elsewhere in the article (in sections that are not as contextual as "surrounding terrain") you'd end up with something overly vague, explained until it's no longer readable or original research-ish. And I don't feel that in most of the article, sentences drag on too long. Or at least, if there are ways to do this (and also change the religion section) they seem very non-obvious to me. In general I think that on a broad and not very deep topic, I feel that having many subtopics covered in not too short paragraphs are the best that can be done. Don't get me wrong, I am not saying that the suggestions so far are useless or anything (especially on overly wordy, overcited or fluff-laden sentences they have been very helpful), but sometimes there is a risk of trading one problem with another when it comes to general structure. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:13, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Jo-Jo Eumerus; my apologies for the late response, as I was traveling all of last week and barely keeping up. I understand this must be a frustrating experience for you, but I believe it to will be worthwhile in the long run. I suspect that ComplexRational (who is accustomed to writing on highly technical topics) will be able to make a lot of progress when they have time for a thorough copyedit. It is unfortunate that all of us have our time divided. I am not fussed at all over whether you take up any specific recommendation given here, because you know the sources best, but I strongly believe that by looking at the kinds of issues we are all raising, you will improve the overall level of writing on your already extensively researched articles. I guess I was hoping that the next step would be for you to go through and try to address every section at the clause level, so that we could be ready for a thorough read-through and higher level copyedit. I am not overly concerned about the religion section; I'd like to see the writing at the clause level addressed. Regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:14, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@SandyGeorgia: Thanks for the encouragement. I think I can carry out another clause (by clause) check over the next week, but there probably won't be any full rewrites of entire sections as I don't expect to find any sections which can be improved by a wholesale redo in my judgment. We'll see if that will leave any unambiguous problems. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 20:10, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nevado

[edit]

It's a bit strange having "Nevado" as the first word of the article unbolded, then the bolded "Coropuna", then the definition for "Nevado", and then no further mention in the article of Nevado as part of the name. It's like starting Emily Blunt With "Lovely Emily Blunt ("Lovely," English, lit. "lurver-lie")..." and then not mentioning Emily Blunt's loveliness again. (Just an example, don't go fixing up Emily Blunt's article.) Yomanganitalk 12:41, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I too thought that strange. Jo-Jo, is it commonly referred to as "Nevado Coropuna"? If so, should we move this article, example, Nevado del Ruiz? If not, not sure why that is in the lead at all. (Noting that Jo-Jo didn't write that lead :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:52, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
My handiwork, based on NASA, and a few other websites I had quickly scanned when rewriting the lead. This though is a rewrite. This is not the time to worry about the lead. Do so at the end when the text might be entirely different. Neither is "Lovely" the best comparison. Nevado is a quick pointer to the reader that this is a different kind of volcano, snow-bound to such a degree so as to have become common usage or reference in Spanish. Not invariantly attached though. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:08, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
In 21st century books, there are 51 books using "Nevado Coropuna"; there are 73 books using Coropuna without Nevado. Whereas Nevado is not majority usage, it is a minority of enough significance to bear mentioning somewhere in the lead. I think. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:24, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I've added a mention to the "name" section and to the infobox, but took it out from the lead as it seems (from Google Scholar and 21st century books referenced above) like it's less commonly used than solely Coropuna. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:51, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder if User:Seattle Skier went there in 2007 and would like to review here? [1] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:52, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jo-Jo, maybe in the Name section, now you need to work in that nevado = snow-covered. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:17, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Just a question, is that the kind of information that we want a source for at FA level? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:40, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Up to you ... I recall seeing it in some of your sources, and some nit-picker may come along at FAC and ask for it. I am not fussed one way or another, but it is a non-English word. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:42, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Couldn't find any with "coropuna" on a quick search...
OK, I could be misremembering, or remembering from some tourism bloggy sources ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:19, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Complex (in many ways)

[edit]

"Coropuna is a dormant volcanic complex"..."The Coropuna is a stratovolcano"..."eruptions of Coropuna itself"..."The mountain was regarded as sacred by the Inca"..."The volcano also appears in legends". Just in the lead you are describing it/them in five different ways. "The Coropuna" is never mentioned again, so I assume that the "The" is left over from some previous phrasing, and the stratovolcano/volcano/mountain wouldn't be bad if it wasn't defined in the first sentence as a volcanic complex. The "volcanic complex" is never mentioned again either, though it is referred to obliquely: "The volcano ... consists of coalesced stratovolcanoes and seven separate coulees". I imagine it is going to be a bit difficult to resolve if you want a shorthand for "volcanic complex" that isn't "volcano" and while the literature probably says "volcano,volcano,volcano". If the opening sentence could be something like "Coropuna is a dormant volcano in the Peruvian Andes formed of coalesced stratovolcanoes and seven coulees", (and with a link to volcanic complex in there somewhere) you could avoid the problem entirely. Yomanganitalk 10:34, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for pointing out some issues, mostly introduced by me. The thing is "Volcanic complex" is scholarly usage. See here, and I didn't even ask for scholarly articles. Indeed it is called "NCVC." (Aside: Note also the more common use of Nevado in the scholarly literature, 662 with vs 530 without, but this has been addressed in another section.) A problem earlier was that Volcanic complex was linking to Volcanic group, whereas we want it to link to Complex volcano; however "Coropuna complex volcano" is not scholarly usage, indeed not any usage. This I have fixed. Another problem, and Jo-Jo being the expert will correct me, is that Coropuna is used for the region of 240 sq miles, and also used for the main cone. This I haven't entirely. As for "coulee," do you mean "lava flow" or "gulch?" The main thing for me is that our usage has to be consistent with the usage in the sources, and "stratovolcano" "coulee" and "Coropuna" don't seem to go together. I've now gotten rid of the obvious issues. I haven't touched the bit about Coropuna's distance to a city because I don't know what is meant. "The Coropuna" was my work, in keeping with "The Matterhorn". But I realized later, they don't use "The" in the literature, just as they don't write the K2. But I never went back to it. (Did I mention I have ADD?) The biggest problem right now is that we can't really fix the lead until the rest of the article is fixed. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:03, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Why not start with "Coropuna is a dormant complex volcano" or "Coropuna is a dormant compound volcano"? The terms "complex volcano" and "compound volcano" seem well represented in the literature, you wouldn't be giving it the title of "Coropuna complex volcano", and you could use "volcano" with abandon in the rest of the article. (Anyway, why are you hanging around here? Haven't you got a review to finish? Arf.) Yomanganitalk 15:25, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
:) Jo-Jo would know the answer to your questions. All but the last, that is. I replied because the lead was my handiwork, albeit written hurriedly during the FAC, with limited knowledge. I'm not attached to my version. I note though that "Complex volcano" is not used much in describing Coropuna itself, and I don't mean in naming it. One could use some paraphrased version of "Coropuna, Peru's highest and largest volcano, is a massive ice-covered volcanic complex with at least a half dozen summit cones scattered over a 12 x 20 km area." This is the Smithsonian/USGS's phrasing. Their picture graces the article. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:48, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That would be fine too. The problem as it stands is that Coropuna is not identified as a volcano in the opening sentence, so anything that gets round that will work. Yomanganitalk 15:25, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please change it in the manner you think is most appropriate. Thanks for noticing. I would not have noticed the problem myself. One of those things. That is why collaboration is so useful. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:35, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Yomangani and Fowler&fowler: (not sure if "Fowler&fowler" is the correct markup for the ping) "The Coropuna" is definitively wrong and should be excised. I think that using "volcano" for most of the article except for when we say "Coropuna is a stratovolcano" and "Coropuna is a volcanic complex" would be the correct approach. The problem is that "volcano" in the academic literature is used either for specific "edifices" that are part of a larger complex or for the entire complex (which is then called "compound volcano" or "complex volcano" depending on the whims of the authors), often with little explanation. And thanks for the comments. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 20:08, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Aren't they great ? They keep me and my prose in my place! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:12, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Jo-Jo Eumerus: It is the correct markup. Sorry for the belated response. I agree with you and like Yomangani's change in the lead. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 22:08, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sample

[edit]

Following, as always, the brilliance of Yo-man's edit summaries, I came to see this. I thought I fixed all the dashes and hyphens once, but this presents a new example of things to be addressed throughout, while using User:Tony1's examples of reducing "snakes".

  • The Upper Sencca ignimbrites are a 2.09 - 1.76 million years old composite ignimbrite which form a 10–30 m (33–98 ft) thick apron around Coropuna and other regional volcanoes; Coropuna appears to have formed on top of one of the Upper Sencca Ignimbrite vents.
The 2.09 - 1.76 would need an endash, not a hyphen.
The million years old requires hyphenation.
The 30m-thick apron also requires hyphenation. (I can't even figure out how to make that happen with the convert.)

But if we do all that, we end up with a mess of dashes and hyphens:

  • The Upper Sencca ignimbrites are a 2.09–1.76-million-years-old composite ignimbrite which form a 10–30 m (33–98 ft)-thick apron around Coropuna and other regional volcanoes; Coropuna appears to have formed on top of one of the Upper Sencca Ignimbrite vents.

indicating that the entire sentence should be recast to avoid this problem. At the same time, we can hopefully avoid the redundant use of the word "ignimbrite" three times in one sentence. And we can separate all those numbers to a sentence the reader can gloss over is they want the big picture rather than the minute detail. My prose stinks, but something like ???

  • Coropuna appears to have formed on top of one of the Upper Sencca Ignimbrite vents. These composite vents form a thick apron around Coropuna and other regional volcanoes. They are between 2.09 and 1.76 million years old and 10–30 m (33–98 ft) thick.

This kind of work is tedious but needed throughout. (Not sure why one Ignimbrite is in upper case?) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:16, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Um. To be honest, while I see the Seeschlangen problem (that's how we call the overly long sentences in German) I don't like the proposed rewrite; it looks staccato/jumpish to me. I did write like this in my initial Wikipedia career but it always came off as uneven. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:57, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Other castings are available (apologies for any technical booboos - the plural/singular ignimbrite is a bit difficult and "thick" relies on the reader already understanding the term): The Upper Sencca ignimbrites, which form an apron around Coropuna and other regional volcanoes to a depth of 10–30 m (33–98 ft), are a composite ignimbrite that formed 2.09–1.76 million years ago; Coropuna appears to have formed on top of one of the Upper Sencca Ignimbrite vents. Yomanganitalk 11:22, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Seems to solve the problems, except could we avoid form ... formed ... formed three times ? (I added a needed nowrap template to your suggestion.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:21, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Second "formed" can be replaced with "were emplaced" if we accept the extra length. @SandyGeorgia: I believe you want |adj=on for the hyphen in the convert template. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 21:13, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks :) Anyway, please don't feel you have to satisfy me on the final wording chosen; just offering examples :) Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:23, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Still have to fix this one ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:17, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Water source

[edit]

Randomly picking a new section to see if problems mentioned earlier persist.

What do you think about shortening the Section title "Importance as a source of water" to something like "Water source"? This may be personal preference, but I really dislike overlong section titles.

Also, using that section for an example, heavily cited articles can present such a distraction to readers. What would you think about (just as an example) combing the two citations here:

  • Meltwater from the glaciers on Coropuna sustains the baseflow of the rivers[131] during dry periods;[89] Coropuna is an important source of water for the valleys of the surrounding areas and for the desert-like piedmont,[105] with an estimated 38,000 people depending directly or indirectly on water originating from it.[69]

thusly:

  • Meltwater from the glaciers on Coropuna sustains the baseflow of the rivers during dry periods;[89][131] Coropuna is an important source of water for the valleys of the surrounding areas and for the desert-like piedmont, with an estimated 38,000 people depending directly or indirectly on water originating from it.[69][105]

that is, could we not in cases like this ask the reader to wait for the punctuation to find the citation? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:44, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@SandyGeorgia:Hrm. To me "water source" sounds like a section that discusses where the water that snows onto Coropuna comes from. That's not a very important question for Coropuna specifically, but certainly for regional climatology so it's not an implausible (mis)reading of the section header. Regarding the citations that's a question that I've faced at the peer review of African humid period - dispersed citations make the source-text correspondence clearer, clumped citations make the text more readable. It's a bit of a tradeoff.

You've probably seen that I've been editing some sections. I am making my long promised pass-through and will write a list of sections which are IMO ready and those where there are prose questions. I suspect that we are at the stage where most of the actual writing problems are resolved and what is left are either style choices or things - like the referencing point you are asking about - which require tradeoffs. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 20:02, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

OK to all ... I am probably getting ahead of you and getting in your way now then ... just didn't want you to think I'd forgotten you! I'll hold off on any further suggestions today. Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:06, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Vegetation, fauna and agriculture

[edit]
  • Still concerned that we should have more information on fauna; is there nothing else?
  • See MOS:DATETOPRES: Use an en dash, or a word such as from or between, but not both: from 1881 to 1886 (not from 1881–1886); between June 1 and July 3 (not between June 1 – July 3) which logically would apply also the elevation ranges, although I don't want to troll through all of MOS to find that. It just reads weird to see "Between 3,000–4,000 m" for the same reason it does on date ranges.
  • WP:OVERLINKing of common terms like onion, potato, rice, garlic ...

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:53, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take another look at the fauna, but I am not terribly optimistic. I suspect this is the kind of information that you either find in sources that talk about the region and not the volcano specifically, or in tourism brochures which raise WP:RS concerns. I'll get the rest of these points during my above mentioned list pass. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 20:02, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Jo-Jo Eumerus I found a possible way to back into fauna. From tourist sources, I find mention of llama, alpaca, guanaco, fox, eagle, falcon at least in addition to those already mentioned. And by scholar.googling on these (English and Spanish), you can access scholarly sources that mention them. Since I don't have journal access, I have to leave that to you :) Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:15, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Seems like all these sources merely mention both animal and Coropuna without actually connecting them. Same for Google Books search results I've seen. I've attempted to expand the animal list from the bulleted list, however. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 11:08, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Some section by section stuff

[edit]

So, the promised piece-by-piece re-reading. This is intended to be effectively my last re-do of the text here:

  • The "name" section seems OK to me, but I've added a translation of "Nevado" as "snowy". I think it's straightforward enough to fall under WP:TRANSCRIPTION. I am a little uncertain on the last sentence though.
  • "Geography and geomorphology", I wonder if the "towns..." sentence should go into the next section. Also if the last sentence could be re-cast to not use "also".
  • "General outline" I wonder in the third subparagraph whether it can be started with "ice cap" or whether to shift the "Regions of" sentence to be the first one.
  • "Lakes and rivers" I've shortened and cut some content here.
  • "Surrounding terrain" I think the first sentence can be recast in some fashion. On the "Chuquibamba" sentence, I am thinking of moving it to a footnote.
  • "Elevation and size" I take that this section is finished.
  • "Ice cap" I've slightly rewritten; I wonder if putting the Peru sentence somewhere else would improve the flow here.
  • "Glaciers and periglacial phenomena" I take this section is finished.
  • "Recent area and retreat" I wonder if "13 percent in only 21 years" is a little too ambiguous. "ice cap retreat " in the last paragraph of this subsection might be unnecessary.
  • "Glacial history" I wonder about the last three sentences of the subsection, they appear to be staccatoish.
  • "Last glacial maximum" I take this one is finished as well.
  • "Other glacial periods" I've cut the first sentence of the second paragraph in two.
  • "Regional setting" rearranged a sentence in the first paragraph and cut some unnecessary words in the last".
  • "Stratigraphy" I think this one is done.
  • "Faults and lineaments" cut one "and" in favour of a semicolon.
  • "Composition" I've reworded a little. I think there might be questions about the jargon, but I don't think that this kind of jargon can easily be resolved.
  • "Eruption history" I take that the use of the I/II numeral for both stage and edifice isn't confusing? Standardized to use numbers instead of spelling them out. Regarding the ignimbrite sections (where I've corrected the capitalization) I am not sure if Yomangani's rewrite is better than the current text.
  • "Holocene" I am not sure if we are finished with that section. The same point with the bulleted list applies as with the Vegetation etc. section.
  • "Present day status" and "Hazards and monitoring" I think this one is done.
  • "Precipitation" I've rearranged the section a bit. I wonder if the Altiplano lakes are unnecessary information/footnote information.
  • "Temperatures" shifted a sentence in from the preceding section, but I think it is done.
  • "Vegetation, fauna and agriculture" I've unlinked some overlinked terms and changed the elevation format from "number-number" to "number to number". ComplexRational proposed that making this not list like is better prose; personally I think that for information ordered by elevation a bulleted list is better format, but I don't exclude that there are third options.
  • "Archaeology and religious importance" I think this one is done.
  • "Inca times" split two sentences a little.
  • "Maucallacta and Acchaymarca" shortened a little.
  • "Mythology, religion and legends" I wonder if the first sentence can be retooled somehow.
  • "Climbing" I think this was done?

I've left some questions here where I am not certain myself. I believe that other than these things the text is FAC-ready (prose-wise, that is). Calling @SandyGeorgia, ComplexRational, and Yomangani: to see if there is input/additional issues to address. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 20:49, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

From SG

[edit]

Please feel free to revert anything I do ! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:33, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Numerous archaeological sites lie on Coropuna, especially at the southern and northern bases of the volcano and on its western slope. Some of these western sites are on the ice cap. Among these are tombs such as chullpas.
I don't like to force a reader to click out to understand the text, and think we might combine the last two sentences. Could we say:
  • In the section "Regional", there are three paragraphs. The first talks about the Andes, the second talks about habitations, and the third goes back to the Andes. Can the third paragraph be switched to second ? Or, can the second paragraph about habitations and economy be moved up to above the Regional section, where we also talk about towns? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:40, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Me, dumber than the average bear. I had never encountered the word ignimbrite. When I first encounter it and click, I find I also have to click on tuff to get a full definition, and then I have to go back twice to get back to the article. Could we just add to the first use of term something like: ignimbrite (variety of igneous rock)? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:44, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have the same problem when I first hit the word stratovolcano in the lead. I realize these are common terms for those who know volcanos, but everyone needs to be able to digest the lead without lots of clicking. Could we say, stratovolcano, a composite volcano built up by many layers? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:47, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • These are composed chiefly of ignimbrites and lava flows on a basement formed by earlier ignimbrites and lava flows, some from earlier eruptions.
This is not at all clear ... how is "earlier ... earlier" not redundant, and what is it trying to tell us about the two different "earliers"? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:48, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Coropuna complex has been active for at least five million years, with the bulk of the current cone having been formed during the Quaternary.
I'm forced to click out of the lead now for the third time (OK, I must really be dumb). Could we not say:
  • Coropuna has had two or three Holocene eruptions 2,100 ± 200 and either 1,100 ± 100 or 700 ± 200 years ago which generated lava flows, plus an additional eruption which may have taken place some 6,000 years ago.
Could we avoid overburdening the lead with a whole tonna complex numbers? I run out of breath just reading the sentence. Would something like this work?
  • Coropuna had two or three eruptions which generated lava flows during the Holocene period about one or two millennia ago, plus an additional eruption which may have taken place some 6,000 years ago. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:56, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Why past tense; is it no longer considered to have been important? Why "in their realm"?
  • The volcano also appears in legends.
I'm left wanting for detail. Add some adjectives ... mythology, religion, folklore, whatever to describe these legends? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:05, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Coropuna's ice cap, which during the last glacial maximum had expanded to over 500 square kilometres (190 sq mi), has been in retreat since 1850.
Feels more convoluted than necessary. Why not ...
Same question again-- must we really break up one word of the text for a citation? Missing hyphens here. Constructed atop feels awkward. How about something like:
Sources

References

  1. ^ a b Venturelli et al. 1978, p. 214.
  2. ^ a b Campos 2015, p. 2.
  • Individual ignimbrites crop out mainly in valleys, on the highlands they are buried beneath more recent volcanic products.
Grammatical ... semi-colon missing? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:25, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • One east–west lineament may have influenced the recent volcanism; the alignment of Coropuna with Sara Sara, Solimana and El Misti may indicate a tectonic control on the volcano in general.
What is meant by "recent" here? I do not know what "indicate a tectonic control on the volcano" means (if this is something lay persons are not expected to understand, pls ignore me). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:30, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The rocks erupted by Coropuna are dark brown ...
Is this a stupid question? I thought lava erupted and turned into rock; how do rocks erupt? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:31, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Stopping for now so others can review; I am feeling like I must be dreadfully ignorant, and for one year of undergrad, I was determined to be a Geology major! My edits to this point. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:48, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with SandyG's remarks about Regional. As a demonstration, I've rearranged the sentences there so that a reader is at all times moving from the general to the particular. Also, the sentences about political geography are separated from those about physical. See here, which I have reverted. I haven't re-edited it for prose, hopefully only for coherence (linguistics) and cohesion (linguistics), which in my view are more important than those of prose style, although people often confuse them for the latter. But I don't truly understand the geography, so it might still be a tad incoherent. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 02:02, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't know where to fit the prepositional phrase, "In the Peruvian Andes," not knowing their extent relative to the earlier subgrouping of the Andes. This is the kind of thing Jo-Jo will know about best. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 02:06, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Some replies:
  • I've seen the edits here by Sandy and Fowler&fowler which seem OK to me.
  • The chullpas sentence can't be merged with the preceding one as the towers are not on the ice cap. I've done a different rearrangement.
  • Rearranged the Regional section.
  • I've explained "ignimbrite" and "quaternary" but "stratovolcano" afaik is a grade school thing. Also, sourcing these explanations is being a PITA.
  • Re "earlier...earlier" cut part of the sentence.
  • Linked Acchaymarca in the lead.
  • I think that being precise in dates is better in the lead.
  • As far as I know unlike the Maya the Inka religion is pretty much extinct and much of what we know about their religion comes from early Spanish sources. So using past tense is probably appropriate.
  • The legend stuff is so sparse that I'll punt it to the dedicated section.
  • Linked basement.
  • I don't feel like the LGM to retreat sentence is better than what is currently in the article.
  • Replaced "stratigraphy" with "underlying rocks".
  • I've cut a duplicative citation in the "atop" sentence but I think its structure is otherwise fine.
  • Put the semicolon in.
  • "Recent" means the three or four recent eruptions. "Tectonic control" means that tectonic phenomena related to the lineament influenced the eruptions.
  • "Rocks" is simply the word I used for now-solidified lava and ignimbrite.
@SandyGeorgia: Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 13:13, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

FAC ready?

[edit]
So, am I sensing now that with read-throughs by the others, you are close to FACcing? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:18, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@SandyGeorgia:Yes, providing that there aren't any "blocking" problems or objections of course. JoJo Eumerus mobile (main talk) 09:52, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I feel like you could go back to FAC now; my only concern is that each time I look, I see something new, so it would seem better preprared if one of the more-competent-than-I other reviewers would do a full read through. We don't need perfection,just enough to be FAC ready. @ComplexRational, Yomangani, and Fowler&fowler:. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:18, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'll see for their input. Incidentally, after Coropuna I plan to bring Laguna del Maule (volcano) to FAC if anyone's interested ... it's one of my older articles so while it (hopefully) doesn't have as many snakes it might need more work than Coropuna. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 18:05, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I would love to help out there, but timing is really bad for me. Since my prose stinks, and with Colin, Yomangani and Outriggr combing through Tourette syndrome before mainpage day, they are keeping me busy to the point that my arthritic fingers hurt from typing! And, I am contemplating adding a whole new section to that article, after a discussion at WT:MEDMOS suggesting there is support to broaden the scope of medical content. That will keep me busy until after March 3, but I will try to remember to look in. If I get busy and forget, please ping me so that at least I can do some petty MOS stuff before you FAC. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:10, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Fixes needed

[edit]

I can't access the source, so can't correct the typo in this number myself:

  • According to the 2007 census, 11,0481 people lived in the provinces that span Coropuna and lie downstream of it.[131]

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:23, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please review; this was confusing.[2] (I apologize if I got it wrong, but I'm feeling bad about filling the talk page with so many things rather than trying to fix them directly.)

First, I removed the italics from proper names (see WP:BADITALICS). Next, Coropuna Casulla was already mentioned in the first paragraph with its height given, but that information was repeated two paragraphs later. Also, the first paragraph gave the elevation of El Toro Summit (as being more than 6,000 m), but it wasn't listed in the third paragraph among those more than 6,000 m elevation. And finally, the hyphenation for adjective problems was there, so I recast the sentence. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:46, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think the prior structure was better as it doesn't spread the names across the paragraph (and it's Casulla, not Cassella - corrected this one). This, I'd copy El Toro to the list of peaks with names, rather than to the beginning of the paragraph. JoJo Eumerus mobile (main talk) 09:50, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Please do as you wish, again ... I'm not fixed on any given construct, just did it myself this time to try to same time so you could get moving towards FAC. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:40, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
OK, done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 18:05, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Information in the supplemental information to an academic paper

[edit]

This paper discusses thermal anomalies at Coropuna in its supplemental information sheet, but not in the actual paper. Not sure if it should be included or not. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 11:33, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Does this refer to Coropuna?

[edit]

This paper includes some information that could be useful for inclusion iff it refers to archeological findings on Coropuna. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 18:36, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Someone changed the title picture

[edit]

To some movie poster .... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.96.116.229 (talk) 00:29, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Readership numbers

[edit]

Going by this it seems like lots of people are interested in the lead and fewer into the climbers. About 1/1000 also in the naming examples. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:42, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Potential sources

[edit]

I am not sure if this is a paper or a thesis; if the former, we could use it. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:18, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Is El Toro or Casulla the highest summit?

[edit]

Currently the article says Casulla, but this older source proposes it might be El Toro instead. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:57, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

When was the mummy found?

[edit]

The article says in 1965, but this other source mentions 1960. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:57, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Updates

[edit]
  • The SVG showing the retreat of ice may need updating.
  • This old source might make a point about the name of the mountain being originally of the high plain.

Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:24, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Is Qoropuna in this Peruvian myth the same as Coropuna

[edit]
Moved to Wikipedia:Reference desk/Humanities § Is Qoropuna in this Peruvian myth the same as Coropuna


Cite error: There are <ref group=lower-alpha> tags or {{efn}} templates on this page, but the references will not show without a {{reflist|group=lower-alpha}} template or {{notelist}} template (see the help page).

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Coropuna&oldid=1206712587"