Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Cerro Blanco (volcano)/archive1

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Buidhe via FACBot (talk) 22 November 2021 [1].

Cerro Blanco (volcano)

Nominator(s): Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 11:23, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a volcanic caldera in remote northwestern Argentina. It is well known for three reasons; firstly, the wind-formed landscape at Campo de Piedra Pomez that has been used as an analogue terrain for Mars and is also a local tourism destination. Secondly, for its major eruption 4,200 years ago that distributed volcanic ash across the region. Third, because satellite images have seen that the caldera is actively deforming to this day. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 11:23, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

Suggest adding alt text
File:Cerro_Blanco_volcano_(AVA_Granule_L1B_20000916145757).jpg: source link doesn't appear to be working. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:38, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Done and added an archive. Given the notice on this page I think this may work again in the near future. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:52, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Placeholder for non-expert prose review. Will try to start this soon. Moisejp (talk) 04:43, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Calderas and lava domes:

"The Cerro Blanco caldera is about 6 kilometres (3.7 mi)[1]–4 kilometres (2.5 mi) wide": Does this mean the width ranges from 4–6 kilometres? Or possibly different estimates or different interpretations of what is included in its boundaries? This point is not very clear. Also, should the 4 come before the 6?
It's a width range from disagreeing sources, which is why each dimension has its own source. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:30, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure if there are conventions for this in geographical-related articles, but I think if it were me, I would probably write the following differently:

"13 by 10 kilometres (8.1 mi × 6.2 mi) caldera" → possibly "13- by 10-kilometre (8.1 mi × 6.2 mi) caldera" or "13- by 10-kilometre (8.1-mi × 6.2-mi) caldera"
"a 2.7 by 1.4 kilometres (1.68 mi × 0.87 mi) wide lava dome" → "a 2.7- by 1.4-kilometre (1.68 mi × 0.87 mi) wide lava dome" or a 2.7- by 1.4-kilometre (1.68-mi × 0.87-mi) wide lava dome"
"1.2 kilometres (0.75 mi) wide and 20 metres (66 ft) deep vent" → "1.2-kilometre (0.75-mi) wide and 20-metre (66-ft) deep vent"

The hyphens are possibly discussable, but I'd argue that in cases like these where there's a noun (caldera, dome, vent) following the unit of measure (kilometre, metre) then the unit of measure should be singular. Unless there are regional differences regarding this point, in which case the regional difference is of course valid. (Just to be clear, the instances I'm talking about here are only the ones where there is a noun following. In "6 kilometres (3.7 mi)[1]–4 kilometres (2.5 mi) wide" above there is no noun at the end so the s on kilometres is good and definitely no hyphen is needed.) Moisejp (talk) 04:28, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly, the main reason why there aren't hyphens is because {{convert}} does not automatically add them. I am agnostic on whether to add them. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:30, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Jo-Jo Eumerus: {{convert}} can indeed automatically add them: {{convert|1.2|km|mi|adj=mid|abbr=off}} → 1.2-kilometre (0.75-mile). Volcanoguy 06:23, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jo-Jo. I'm really sorry, but something has come up in real life and I need to break off this review and take a Wikibreak. I appreciate the source and image reviews you've done for me in the past. I hope to continue reviewing some of your articles in the future when my life has gotten less busy again. Best of luck on your article. Best wishes, Moisejp (talk) 00:33, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Volcanoguy

I will be reviewing this in a bit. Volcanoguy 21:13, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've made several changes to the article while I was reviewing it so I didn't have to list all of my concerns here. Volcanoguy 22:40, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator note

Nearly three weeks in and no signs of a consensus to promote forming. If this doesn't improve considerably by the three week mark I am afraid that the nomination is liable to be archived. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:57, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging the reviewers at El Tatio to see if they want to comment on this one: @Wtfiv, Kusma, Femkemilene, Nikkimaria, Chidgk1, Volcanoguy, and TheDoctorWho: Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:49, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Funk

I'll have a look soonish. At first glance, there are a lot of duplinks which can be highlighted with the usual tool.[2] FunkMonk (talk) 03:03, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:15, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No more relevant images that could spice up the latter part of the article? Looked at Flickr? There seem to be some more interesting images in this Commons category?[3]
Flickr has nothing for Cerro Blanco that is about this volcano and for Campo de Piedra Pomez most images are already on Commons. Regarding the Commons images ... eh, most of them look all pretty much alike. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:15, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Any reason why the infobox image is framed ina way that it has a lot of black borders? Can't it be cropped to a square? If it's because it has the right north south directions or something, I don't think it's that necessary, since it's not apparent from either the image or the caption.
I think that's an artifact of the way it was created. I don't know of any crop tool that can remove partially rotated borders, but I'll ask at commons:COM:GL/P Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:15, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I use Microsoft Paint for cropping. Volcanoguy 10:16, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I can do it for you in Photoshop, Paint diminishes image quality, I think. Should I just update the current file? FunkMonk (talk) 15:12, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Better in a new file since the rotation means that we need to specify that the top is north-northeast and not north. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:18, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, seems it was already done on top of the original file. You can always reupload it as a new version, or upload the old version separately again. FunkMonk (talk) 15:20, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Seems you might want to adjust the caption accordingly, if directions have changed. FunkMonk (talk) 10:44, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Done; there wasn't much to change. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 11:48, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder if the meaning of the two common names should also be explained in the article body? There is no explanation for the second one.
Um, I am not sure what the "common names" here are. If you mean the toponyms, I haven't found any source that discusses them. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 11:57, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oh yes, mistakenly used the term used for animals hehe. FunkMonk (talk) 21:11, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Link tectonic?
Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 11:57, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think technical terms like aeolian and cryptodome could be explained in-text.
These two are footnoted now. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 11:57, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"It was among the finalists in the "Seven Wonders of Argentina" contest." When?
Added. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 11:57, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"and at eastern end" There are many places where you don't use definite article before directions, while you do in other places, any reason for this? Reads a bit odd without.
Added a "the". Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 11:57, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There are other cases, but I don't know of whether it is really incorrect. FunkMonk (talk) 21:11, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Link yardangs in caption.
Linked. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 11:57, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"the first was in the middle Miocene and the second began 7 million years ago" Why give geological age for one and number in years for another?
"initiated about 8 million years ago" Again here, I think you could give both geological age and age in numbers for each mention, now it's a hodgepodge of either throughout.
(Discussing both things above) That's going to be impossible; sources sometimes use numerical ages and sometimes age periods. I am unkeen to convert the one into the other because it assumes/negates specificity when it isn't/is present. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:05, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Anything on the wildlife of the area?
As far as I can tell, nobody has discussed the fauna of the volcano's area. The wider region, yes (for example), but I am not sure about using that on an article specific for one location. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:05, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"The oldest[j] volcanic rocks related to Cerro Blanco are the over 750,000 years old so-called "Cortaderas Synthem"; its outcrops are" Strange change from plural to singular. Which is it?
That's something I'll need grammar advice on - the "are" refers to the "volcanic rocks" but the "its" to the "Cortaderas Synthem". Is there a better formulation? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:05, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As usual, I'll see if Gog the Mild has something to say on this. FunkMonk (talk) 10:44, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Me as a grammar expert! Ha! Nope, you can't say that, good spot FunkMonk. Maybe 'The oldest volcanic rock formation related to Cerro Blanco is the over 750,000 years old so-called "Cortaderas Synthem"; its outcrops are'? Gog the Mild (talk) 14:36, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That works; it's in. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:44, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"which were erupted a long time apart" Is the "were" needed?
No; I've removed it. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:05, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"They contain pumice and fragments of country rock" I'm sure that's not the article you want linked under country rock...
Aye, thus delinked it. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:05, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"he 4.2 kiloyear event occurred You could add "climatic" to make t clear what this is.
Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:05, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You link some countries, not sure what the guidelines are, but I've been told we shouldn't.
Delinked. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:05, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"No[p] eruptions have been observed or recorded at Cerro Blanco" Add "historically?
Did that. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:05, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"A recent eruption occurred 73,000 years ago" By what standards is this recent? You mention a much later eruption too, but don't call it recent.
It is recent by the standard of regional volcanic activity, but yes it's unclear by layman standards; changed this. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:05, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"These ripple marks are among the most extreme on Earth" In the article body you just say "largest", "extreme" seems hyperbolic.
Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:05, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support - that's it from me, as usual with such articles, it can be a bit hard to follow with all the unfamiliar terms, but I think this is the best that can be done. FunkMonk (talk) 22:46, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

HF

I'll look at this later today. Hog Farm _Talk 16:28, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

" El Niño is sometimes referred to as a scarp." - link or gloss scarp? It's not a well-known term to a lot of readers (including me)
Linked. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 11:21, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"A site southeast of the Robledo caldera is known as Robledo" - "site" is rather vague; can you be more specific?
Well, the problem is that it is just a point on a map and so frequently mentioned that I can't omit a mention, but also totally unexplained. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 11:21, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"Wind has also formed demoiselles[h] and yardangs in the ignimbrites" - Why name both, if you're equating the two items in the note?
I'm investigating this, stand by... Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 11:21, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Think I resolved this one. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 11:52, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The lead says "Unlike dunes, they do not migrate with the wind and are stationary", but then the aeolian landscapes section discusses " Their wind-driven movement is fast enough that trails abandoned four years before are already partly covered with them". This seems contradictory
Resolved this. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 11:21, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"Cerro Blanco is part of the Andean Central Volcanic Zone (CVZ), and one of its southernmost volcanoes" - unclear what this is trying to say. Does it mean that Cerro Blanco is one of the southernmost volcanoes, or that it is part of one of the southernmost volcanoes?
It means that CB is one of the most southern volcanoes of the CVZ. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 11:21, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Don't need to link the Central Volcanic Zone is back-to-back sentences
Delinked. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 11:21, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
""Purulla Supersynthem"." - Is this a typo in the source, or is Supersynthem a technical term?
It's a technical term. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 11:21, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"its outcrops are limited to an area Laguna Carachipampa" - missing word(s)?
Rewritten. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 11:21, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not an expert on this topic, so these are largely prose concerns. Hog Farm _Talk 03:22, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nonexpert support, Hog Farm _Talk 13:33, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Harry

Something I often find myself picking up on: round conversion of measurements that aren't intended to be exact figures.
afterwards came a 2 million year long hiatus need hyphens as a compound adjective (two-million-year-long is modifying hiatus) and I believe "two" should be spelt out per MOS:NUMERAL
Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 20:03, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
range between 600–820 °C don't use dashes for ranges if you're using "between". If you want to keep the endash, go with "in the range of"; or keep between and use "between 600 and 820". Btw, to my non-expert eye that looks like quite a large temperature range. Do we know why there's such a wide range?
Done; AFAIK estimating the temperatures of rocks before they solidified is not a very exact science. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 20:03, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
is the over 750,000 years old so-called "Cortaderas Synthem" is a little awkward; can we restructure the sentence?
I've split it, but honestly I don't find it too awkward. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 20:03, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
source vent for this eruption has not been found, there is no agreement whether I could be misreading but that looks like a comma splice, or you're missing a word like "and" or "although"
It was intended to be a comma splice, yes. I see it's bad style so I've put an "and" in. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 20:03, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
approximately 4200 years ago I'd have said that should be 4,200 years but I double checked and MOS:DIGITS says it's optional for four-digit numbers as long as it's done consistently so I'll leave it to you.
Standardized to 4,200 anyhow. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 20:03, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
up to 30 metres (98 ft) thick deposits needs hyphens; you can use |adj=on in the convert template to produce the first one.
temperatures range between 32–67.4 °C (89.6–153.3 °F) same observation as above
Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 20:03, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
ranked Cerro Blanco eight in its scale of hazardous volcanoes eight out of what? Is that high?
Eight most dangerous, I think. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 20:03, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Scientific interest has risen in the 2010s we're in the 2020s now! Switch to past tense.
Done, although I worry a little that people will misread it as "then but no longer". Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 20:03, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You have a lot of footnotes, which can be distracting. Can anyone of them be culled or incorporated into the text?
Maybe footnote p could be incorporated, but the others are mostly needed to explain concepts and would disrupt the flow if incorporated, or leave things hard to understand if removed. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 20:03, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing major. Very well written and informative as usual. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:49, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

LGTM. Nothing left that's worth quibbling over. Support. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:58, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Coord note

Did I miss a source review? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:31, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not seeing one, either, so I've added it to the source review requests box. Hog Farm _Talk 14:51, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done. Version reviewed

Not a sourcing issue, but from my understanding the "listing" in the infobox is meant to refer to a notable list (eg Seven Summits) rather than a Wikipedia list
See parameter description in {{Infobox mountain}}: "Name of a relevant list of mountains that the peak belongs to." That could refer to any list and from what I have seen this parameter is most commonly used for Wikipedia lists. Volcanoguy 08:17, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, that seems OK to me. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 11:30, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The parameter links to the list of notable lists. If it's being used for Wikipedia lists as you suggest, that doesn't make a lot of sense. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:57, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I have to confess that I don't understand that infobox enough to say how it works. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 19:25, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Lead says over 170 cubic km of tephra, text says about - which is correct?
The heights and wavelengths of the ripples differ significantly between the lead and text - which is correct?
Matched lead to article. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 11:30, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Be consistent in when/whether you include retrieval date. Ditto ISSN, publication location
I am pretty sure the article does use retrieval date only for non-academic sources. Added ISSNs but removed locations. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 11:30, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
For example retrieval date is included for FN23 but not FN1, ISSN for FN57 but not FN48. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:57, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That's all done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 19:25, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
All-caps should be normalized
Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 11:30, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
FN81 is dead - what is SCN?
Replaced, might want to check that the archive works & verifies the content. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 11:30, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
PDF is not opening for me. Is there a concern that it would not verify the content? If so, why is it being cited? Nikkimaria (talk) 16:57, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No, the concern is that the PDF takes a long time to load and sometimes the website is just offline. That's why I added the archive, but it too takes a long time to load. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 19:25, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Conde Serra is missing publisher
There apparently isn't one? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 11:30, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Who was this report submitted to? Nikkimaria (talk) 16:57, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The SEGEMAR archive, I guess. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 19:25, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Fernandez-Turiel ref is incomplete. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:30, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I am not sure I see it... Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 11:30, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It appears that the link is offline this week, but IIRC it seemed to be a conference paper. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:57, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 19:25, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The citation does not show that. Additional detail is needed. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:44, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Added some detail. Until the website comes back, I don't think any further detail will be forthcoming. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 11:40, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Nikkimaria:Website is now back, but it doesn't have a lot of extra detail. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 12:58, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(←) @Nikkimaria: Are you satisfied with the source review? (t · c) buidhe 21:41, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:55, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. (t · c) buidhe 22:35, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.