Talk:Puyehue-Cordón Caulle/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Pyrotec (talk) 21:06, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I will review. Pyrotec (talk) 21:06, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I also will review, using the structure that Pyrotec started. Awickert (talk) 22:39, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

[I have also been making some small changes to the article and tagging within it. Awickert (talk) 04:30, 25 July 2010 (UTC)][reply]

[My comments will all be signed, to separate them from Pyrotec's. Awickert (talk) 04:58, 25 July 2010 (UTC)][reply]

I've added this article to Wikipedia:WikiProject Volcanoes/Article alerts (manually, unfortunatly). ResMar 04:37, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Initial comments

I've had a quick read through the article. At present, I would suggest that the article is fairly close to being a GA, as it is well illustrated and fairly comprehensive in scope, but it is not yet at GA:

The WP:Lead appears to be need some work: its intended to both introduce the topic and summarise the main points, but its not all that easy to read.

Almost half of all the sections are poorly referenced, and in some only wikilinks are provided - which do not count as citations. There is also some WP:Overlinking.

I will not quick fail this article, as it has the potential to make GA provided that it is improved. I will now go through section by section in more depth, but leaving the WP:Lead (Lede) until last. Pyrotec (talk) 18:59, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lede

"Cinder cones, lava domes, calderas and craters can be found in the area apart from the widest variety of volcanic rocks in all the Southern Volcanic Zone,[3] for example both primitive basalts and rhyolites.": This sentence leaves me confused. What does "apart from" mean? Do you mean, "and has"? Awickert (talk) 22:39, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Geography -

The first part consists of a single paragraph with a single citation at the end. The citation is a journal that requires a subscription, so I can't check that the article verifies any or all of the statements.
The beginning of the paragraph is geographic, so nothing of any controversy.
The statement "The fact that Puyehue volcano is named after Puyehue Lake reflects that it is better seen and more accessible from the south" is controversial and needs a citation. Since it is a fact that the volcano is named after the lake and not the lack after the volcano, provide proof of the claim.

This sentence is very liekly to be true but agree that it should be removed until a reliable source can back this.Dentren | ^Talk 21:14, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I put a couple of fact tags in this section (just noting this here). Awickert (talk) 04:30, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"Puyehue Volcano is a stratovolcano located on the southeastern end of Cordón Caulle just east of the main fault of the Liquiñe-Ofqui Fault Zone." Can't find the position of Puyehue in the source; seems ambiguous from the map on p. 351, but I could be missing something in my skim. Awickert (talk) 04:30, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

- Flora -

Looking at the Google-translated version of ref 7: I'm not convinced that it (ref 7) verifies much of what is stated.

Chaura, Murtilla de Magallanes, Ratonera and Parrilla are the species mentioned in the National Parks website but since these are local spanish names the scientific names; Gaultheria mucronata, Empetrum rubrum, Hordeum comosun and Cissus striata; were used.Dentren | ^Talk 21:20, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the clarification. I'll accept that the plant species are referenced by citation 7; but the tree line and the species up to the tree line are not WP:verifiable, as yet. Pyrotec (talk) 08:42, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

While a 1500 m tree line sounds plausible, this is not given in the cited source (about to place a fact tag so you can see right where this is). Awickert (talk) 04:43, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Geologic history -

Y Pyrotec (talk) 08:44, 25 July 2010 (UTC) - Some WP:Overlinking in this section, as a whole, i.e. Pliocene, Southern Volcanic Zone and shield volcano appear twice: there may be others.[reply]

Fixed. Dentren | ^Talk 21:14, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

- Ancestral volcanoes -

No references provided.
Also, as I mention in my fact tag, "Sierra Nevada" comes out of nowhere (can't find in refs, no mention in lede). Awickert (talk) 04:58, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

- Volcanism during the Llanquihue glaciation -

Ref 3 is quite a good paper; but its the only citation in this subsection and I'm not sure that it provides verification for very much of this subsection.

.... to be continued. Pyrotec (talk) 19:50, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Recent eruptive history -

Only the table has a citation.
The first section is uncited: I suggest that, if appropriate, you use ref 1 as a citation. If ref 1 is not appropriate, then you aught to provide the necessary citation(s).
Similar comments apply to the 1921–1922, 1929 and 1934 eruptions subsection. Pyrotec (talk) 08:37, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

- Activity after 1960 -

I think there may be a problem with web ref 10, I can't access it. However, its a "raw" web cite, it needs at least an accessdate (see Template:Cite web).

Geothermal activity and exploration -

I assume that verification for the sentence "High temperatures and heat flow has made Cordón Caulle one of the main sites of geothermal exploration in Chile." comes from ref 5. I suggest that you add ref 5 at the end as a citation. I also think that a minor expansion of the sentence is needed. Some information, for example, is given in Section 4 of ref 5. It could be a little as: its use is currently limited to spas and swimming pools (if appropriate).

WP:lead -

Awickert has raised some points above that need to be addressed.
As per my comments above: : The WP:Lead appears to be need some work: its intended to both introduce the topic and summarise the main points, but its not all that easy to read.
In respect of providing an "introduction", I consider that it contains adequate information; however as a summary it needs a bit more detail. As a minium, I suggest that the short sentence on the 1960 Valdivia earthquake be expanded to summarise a bit more of the known eruptive history.

At this point I'm putting the review On Hold for the above points to be addressed. Pyrotec (talk) 19:57, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As no progress has been made in the last 18 days, I'm closing this review. Pyrotec (talk) 16:40, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]