Talk:Licancabur Lake/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Ealdgyth (talk · contribs) 20:06, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

I'll get to this in the next few days... -- Ealdgyth (talk) 20:06, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Haven't forgotten... just been busy. -- Ealdgyth (talk) 19:55, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Eh, no big deal. I haven't been very active lately, either. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:45, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

• Lead:
  • "Licancabur Lake is a crater lake in Chile located in the volcano Licancabur in the Antofagasta region, of the Región de Antofagasta, Province of El Loa." Okay, so... this is just one very long and dull recitition of where this is. Can we break it up somehow? And do we really need the various subdivisions in the lead? Perhaps "Licancabur Lake is a crater lake in Chile located in the volcano Licancabur near the Bolivian border."?

    Did a rewrite; is this better? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:11, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

  • "It is close to San Pedro de Atacama and also very close to the border of Chile with Bolivia." ... and what is San Pedro de Atacama and why do we care?

    Specified "city"; it's to make it clearer how to access the place. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:11, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

  • "The lake is one among several volcanic lakes in the region at high altitude." Awkward. Suggest "The lake is among several high altitude volcanic lakes in the region."

    That's better; swapped it in. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:11, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

  • Second paragraph - First three sentences start "The lake... The lake... While the lake..." which is repetitious.

    Rewrote this a little. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:11, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

  • "It covered a surface area of 7,000 square metres (75,000 sq ft) in 2002; lake levels vary otherwise." why 2002? Wouldn't we be better off giving something like "Its surface area has varied over time - from <greatest extent> to <least extent>." The lead is supposed to be a quick summary ...

    2002 is the year where someone investigated the lake and determined its surface area that year. Did a rewrite to make this clearer. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:11, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

  • "The lake has clear waters and is slightly saline;" perhaps "The lake's waters are clear and slightly saline;"? Just changing the tense a bit (even if not making it totally active voice) will help with reader engagement.

    Rewrote this. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:11, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

  • "temperatures ranging between 1.4–4.3 °C (34.5–39.7 °F) and 6 °C (43 °F) as recorded at the lake bottom in 2006 suggest it is subject to geothermal heating." Do we really need the range of temps and the date here? It's just cluttering up the lead and losing readers. Suggest "temperature readings suggest it is subject to geothermal heating."?

    Cut the first part and rewrote the second. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:11, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

  • "features a biota including" link/explantaion of what a biota is?

    Rewrote this to cut the "biota". Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:11, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

• Context:
  • "conditions that existed on Mars" had existed or still exist?

    Had, added it in. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:11, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

  • "Escalante volcano farther north also had a crater lake in 2004." Okay, so what? suggest cutting this as it is not really sticking to the facts of this lake.

    Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:11, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

  • And this is why I suggest cutting the above: "The volcano was considered a..." Which volcano? The last volcano discussed was Escalante ... so either this is confusing to the reader because we are returning to discussing Licancabur or it's discussing Escalante which is utterly unrelated to the subject of the article.

    Swapped to "Licancabur". Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:11, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

  • "Nevertheless, stone buildings were found by climbers on the crater rim in 1953." Any idea who did the structures?

    Presumably the Inka, but that source does not specify ... I'll look for another one. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:11, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

  • "Legend has it that a golden guanaco head can be found in the crater." Any further details on this legend? Incan? Post-conquest?

    Post-conquest from the context in the source. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:11, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

• Physical properties:
  • "According to estimates in 1955," do we need to state this? Have the findings been contested by other studies?

    No, but the thing about these dryland lakes is that their properties often change with climate (especially the hydrology). Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:11, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

  • "and past shorelines indicate that the lake reached depths of 10–12 metres (33–39 ft)." but we've already mentioned deeper by far depths - and this is just an isolated factoid kinda floating here... if the lake reached 40 metres, we an assume that 10-12 metres was also a possibility.

    Hmm? I don't see any other depth mentioned. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:11, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

    • "when the climate was wetter and water depth reached 40 metres (130 ft). " previous sentence... Ealdgyth (talk) 13:55, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

      Oy. Failed a spot check there. That said, intermediary depths can be important in paleoclimate reconstructions. I've rewritten this a little. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:53, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

  • "The high quantities of Al, Ca, Fe, Mg and Na in the waters" - spell out the elements?

    Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:11, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

• Biology:
  • "water column"? Clueless here... what does this mean?

    Linked it. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:11, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

  • "A total dissolved carbon content of 2.44 milligrams per litre (1.41×10−6 oz/cu in) has been found in the lake. The amount of cells found in sediments of the lake increases with the depth of the sediments; archea are only present beneath 2.5 metres (8 ft 2 in)." I have no idea why this is important - seems totally random and unrelated to the other parts of this paragraph... needs more context...

    It's a quantitative measure of how many lifeforms there are in the lake. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:11, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

    • Well, it's not explained why it's important so .. perhaps it needs explanation? Ealdgyth (talk) 13:57, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

      Added a bit of explanation; is it better now? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:53, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

  • "Some genomic sequences retrieved from Licancabur resemble those from Salar de Ascotan, Salar de Atacama and Salar del Huasco." .. and this is important how?

    Removed this part. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:11, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

  • "Species that have been identified in Licancabur Lake include... " wouldn't these be other species? Or did you mean "Animal species"?

    Animal species; I've put that in. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:11, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

• Scuba diving ... this tells us nothing, honestly. I'd cut the whole section.

  Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:11, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

• Sources:
  • What makes http://highestlakes.com/list.html a reliable source?

    Nothing as far as I can tell so I've removed it. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:11, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

• I randomly googled three phrases and only turned up Wikipedia mirrors. Earwig's tool no copyright concerns.

I did do some copyediting, please make sure I didn't change any sourced text beyond what the sources will support or that I haven't broken anything.

Checked it and nothing seems problematic to me. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:11, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

I've put the article on hold for seven days to allow folks to address the issues I've brought up. Feel free to contact me on my talk page, or here with any concerns, and let me know one of those places when the issues have been addressed. If I may suggest that you strike out, check mark, or otherwise mark the items I've detailed, that will make it possible for me to see what's been addressed, and you can keep track of what's been done and what still needs to be worked on. Ealdgyth (talk) 16:37, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Changes look good, passing now. Ealdgyth (talk) 17:45, 21 January 2021 (UTC)