Talk:Laguna Negra, Catamarca

Laguna Negra, Catamarca has been listed as one of the Geography and places good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Review: October 27, 2020. (Reviewed version).

Argentina Low‑importance

	Argentina portal This article is part of WikiProject Argentina, an attempt to expand, improve and standardise the content and structure of articles related to Argentina. If you would like to participate, you can improve Laguna Negra, Catamarca, or sign up and contribute to a wider array of articles like those on our to do list.ArgentinaWikipedia:WikiProject ArgentinaTemplate:WikiProject ArgentinaArgentine articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Lakes Low‑importance

	Lakes portal Laguna Negra, Catamarca is within the scope of WikiProject Lakes, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of lake-related articles on Wikipedia, using the tools on the project page. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LakesWikipedia:WikiProject LakesTemplate:WikiProject LakesLakes articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Microbiology Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Microbiology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Microbiology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MicrobiologyWikipedia:WikiProject MicrobiologyTemplate:WikiProject MicrobiologyMicrobiology articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

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

Newspaper article

Not sure if this would be a suitable source for environmental impacts. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:17, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Laguna Negra/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Hog Farm (talk · contribs) 03:29, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lead

"Laguna Socompa loses its water through evaporation" - Laguna Socompa appears here with no previous references, which is a bit confusing.
Buh. 'twas a big copypaste error; remedied. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 19:07, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Climate and vegetation

"and copepods were observed in ponds;" - "Were" can imply that the copepods were observed, but are no longer there. Maybe "and copepods have been observed in ponds;" is better
Replaced. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 19:07, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Is there a way to rephrase this section title, as copepods are also mentioned? Copepods are not vegetation, so the scope of the heading doesn't quite reflect the scope of the section
Sure, done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 19:07, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Carbonates and microbrial mats

" but uranium-thorium dating performed on one oncolites indicates that it began to develop in the Late Holocene" - The use of "one" and "it" suggest that only one oncolite was tested, but then the plural is used in the sentence, so its unclear if one oncolite or many were tested.
Replaced with a singular. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 19:07, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Gloss what an "entombed" diatom is
The source doesn't bother to explain, either. Added a Wiktionary link. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 19:07, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lithium mining

Personally, I think this mini-section is probably out of scope. The Salar Tres Quebradas salt falt isn't considered to be part of the scope of the rest of the article' it's just a nearby feature that's briefly mentioned as part of the regional context. Since the Salar Tres Quebradas isn't part of the discussion for biology or much of the rest of the article, it seems odd to me to treat that feature as within scope here, but not in there. I'd recommend removing it, unless a strong case can be made for it being within the scope of Laguna Negra
I've commented it out. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 19:07, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

References

There are two of the Gomez et al. cites where you cite multiple pages, but use p. instead of pp., use the latter.
Mended. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 19:07, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Other

It seems a little odd to me not to mention how the lake got its name in the article.
There is no source that explicitly explains that. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 19:07, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Placing on hold. Hog Farm _Bacon 18:52, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Replied, Hog Farm Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 19:07, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]