Talk:Parinacota (volcano)/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Mike Christie (talk · contribs) 11:53, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'll copyedit as I go through; please revert as needed. There are some dead links: [1], [2], [3], and [4].

where most of the edifice is located: "edifice" is not the right word; it means a structure built by humans. There are several other instances of the word later in the article; is this perhaps a piece of technical vocabulary? It reads very oddly to me. However, if it's standard usage in geology, don't change it.

Yes, "edifice" is a technical term for such things. I think "mountain" may be the best layman term - "volcano" would be duplicative. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 11:53, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Lava flows are fresh: "fresh" seems like an odd word to use of a dormant volcano. Does this just mean that it's not yet significantly eroded?

which reach dimensions of 4 by 2 kilometres (2.5 mi × 1.2 mi) over horizontal distance: I think this could be cut to "which are 4 by 2 kilometres".

I'd suggest adding a sentence to the lead about the possible dates at which it most recently erupted.

There is already the latest about 200 years ago., unless you want to specify. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 11:53, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Periglacial landscapes are frequent in the area; they include plantation surfaces,: what does "plantation surface" mean?

with the 0 °C (32 °F) isotherm hovering between 4,800–4,900 °C (8,670–8,850 °F) elevation: presumably this should be feet, not degrees.

These are all minor points; I'll promote the article once they're resolved. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:05, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Fixes look good. Sorry, just realized I hadn't posted some notes on the sources and footnotes:

You have "p." or "pp." where it should be the reverse for footnotes 13, 56, 58, 60, 62, 85, 105, 111, 118, and 132. These are all consistently of the form "p. 83,84", but I think it's standard to make those "pp.".
The two Ginibre et al. sources in the source list are out of sequence; my understanding is that the sort order is determined by authors first, and by date only after the authors are sorted.

Neither of these is an issue for GA so I'm going to go ahead and promote anyway. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:00, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, I found the source issues with this script, which you may be interested in. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:03, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]