Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Cerro Panizos/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 archived by FrB.TG via FACBot (talk) 27 August 2024 [1].

Cerro Panizos

[edit]
Nominator(s): Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:12, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a not-quite shield volcano in Argentina. It is not a particularly remarkable volcano, other than the fact that it was discovered from space imagery and that it is a large volcano in the wider Altiplano-Puna volcanic complex. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:12, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

Replaced link, although I don't remember which options I chose on the webpage to find the image. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 06:07, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Z1720

[edit]

Non-expert prose review.

  • No concerns about the prose. I made minor edits to the article: feel free to revert.
  • In the "Sources", Mazzoni, Mario M. (1989) and Vaquer, José María; Eguia, Luciana; Carreras, Jesica (2018) have titles in all caps, which per MOS:ALLCAPS should be in sentence case.
    Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 06:40, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Infobox checked and no concerns.

Lede check:

  • "Subduction of the Nazca Plate beneath the South American Plate" is said in the lede, but I think the article body says that the subduction is under South America, with no mention of it being a plate. Should this be more explicit in the body, maybe wikilinked in the body?
    Put "South America" instead. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 06:40, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the lede: "The formation of the APVC has been linked to the existence of a giant magmatic body in the crust of the Andes." From what I gather from the body, this magmatic body is the Altiplano-Puna Magma Body. Should this be wikilinked in the lede? And should the lede specify that the body is in the Central Andies (and not underneath the whole thing?)
    Implemented. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 06:40, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Those are my comments. Please ping when the above are addressed. Z1720 (talk) 01:18, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support. My concerns have been resolved. Z1720 (talk) 15:06, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

MyCat

[edit]
  • Panizos, Vilama, Cerro Guacha and last Uturuncu, which shows evidence of ongoing activity - which one does "which" refer to? If it's Uturuncu, then "the last of which" is better
    Specified. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:00, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • For some reason the coords of the highest point aren't showing for me- it's just blank next to "Coordinates"
    Mm, they do show for me. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:00, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Weird then- guess my viewer is just being odd MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 11:17, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Cerro Panizos[b] proper is a 5,228 metres (17,152 ft),[8] 5,360 metres (17,590 ft) or 5,494 metres (18,025 ft) high[9] lava dome in the southeastern semicircle - my lack of geology knowledge will show, but why are there three different heights here? Isn't this referring to the height of Cerro Panizos?
    There is more than one elevation estimate - these mountains aren't frequently mapped and measured. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:00, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • In para 1, all those references constantly interrupting sentences confuse me- I know that it's ok MoS-wise, I just prefer to keep them to the end. There are so many present here that I worry about others getting confused too
    • Ditto for some others, like the parentheses in para 3 of "Geology"
    That makes it more difficult to source a specific part, though. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:00, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Efn c doesn't really make sense to me- clarify with some geology knowledge perhaps?
    Changed this. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:00, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • They run mostly to the east - I'd avoid using "they" since multiple objects are mentioned in the previous sentence
    Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:00, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Quebrada Cienago[d], - put efn outside of comma
    That makes it look like a citation, which this efn isn't. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:00, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • A branch of the Inca road system passed over the volcano, which features several archeological sites - what does which refer to? The road system as a whole? The volcano?
    Recast. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:00, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • It looks like a lot of the first three paras of "Geology" are about the CVZ, not specifically about the Cerro Panizos- how is Panizos relevant here?
    Aye, that's contextual information as Panizos is part of the APVC and CVZ so a lot of this is pertinent. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:00, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Numerous ignimbrites were emplaced between 25 and 1 million years ago - usually when I see a date range written out like this, the smaller period goes first and the larger period second
    I got the opposite impression - older date first. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:00, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The last eruptions took place 271,000 and 85,000 years ago at Uturuncu and Cerro Chascon-Runtu Jarita complex, - and the Cerro Chascon-Runtu complex...?
    Fone. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:00, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some of the sources have no translated title, like Guzmán et al and Mazzoni and others (I would add the titles myself if my Spanish was any good, but I trust you can since you cited them)
    Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:00, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jo-Jo Eumerus, that's all I got- I also split the sources list into two columns so it doesn't take up as much space (feel free to revert if you oppose). Excellent work! MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 21:16, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

All good on everything, though I do have one comment on the refs. Is citing each individual part of a sentence differently a typical thing in geology articles? I ask this genuinely- in the biographies and other articles I've written, having multiple refs at the end of a sentence is just fine, and IMO makes it more readable. MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 11:19, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that's a question of article topic and more of who writes articles. I prefer this style b/c it's easier to verify (and correct) statements when you only have to check one source. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 05:57, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Makes sense then- happy to support! Also, I need a source review on an FAC nom of my own, and would appreciate one if you get any time. Thank you! MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 19:56, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Volcanoguy

[edit]
Introduction
  • "it produced the large volcanic calderas Panizos, Vilama, Cerro Guacha and Uturuncu". The Uturuncu article claims the latter as a stratovolcano rather than a caldera.
  • "Panizos is the source of two major ignimbrites, the older Cienago Ignimbrite and the more recent Panizos Ignimbrite." Shouldn't the comma be a colon?
    No, I don't think so? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:22, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Geography and geomorphology
  • "The volcano is a 40 kilometres (25 mi) wide" → 10-kilometre-wide (6.2 mi).
  • "surrounding a 10–15 kilometres (6.2–9.3 mi) wide lava dome semicircle" → 10–15-kilometre-wide (6.2–9.3 mi).
  • "Cerro Panizos proper is a 5,228 metres (17,152 ft), 5,360 metres (17,590 ft) or 5,494 metres (18,025 ft) high lava dome in the southeastern semicircle." → "5,228-metre (17,152 ft), 5,360-metre (17,590 ft) or 5,494-metre-high (18,025 ft)
  • "The other domes are the 5,480 metres (17,980 ft), 5,490 metres (18,010 ft) or 5,228 metres (17,152 ft) high Cerro Cuevas, 5,504 metres (18,058 ft) high Cerro Crucesnioc/Crucesnioj/El Volcán, 5,390 metres (17,680 ft) high Cerro Vicunahuasi west and 5,540 metres (18,180 ft) high Cerro La Ramada/Cerro Ramada north of Cerro Panizos." Same as above.
  • "The 5,158 metres (16,923 ft) high Limitayoc". Same as above.
Hydrology and human geography & history
  • "Panizos can be accessed through these valleys." Since no valleys are mentioned before this sentence it would probably be better if were reworded as "Panizos can be accessed through the valleys of these streams."
Climate, flora and fauna
  • "The region is a desert, with the only vegetation consisting of cushion plants, grasses and shrubs." It has already been stated at the beginning of this section that the region is a desert.
Geology
  • "reaching 6,000 metres (20,000 ft) height". I think you mean 6,000 metres (20,000 ft) in height.
    Used a different formulation. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:22, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Neogene-Quaternary volcanic rocks". I'm not sure but I think the hyphen should be an en dash here.
    Not sure myself, so leaving this for now. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:22, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Lascar is the most active of them". Maybe swap "is" with "being"?
  • "The largest assembly of volcanoes in the CVZ is the 70,000 square kilometres". 70,000-square-kilometre (27,000 sq mi).
  • "Within the crust under the APVC is the Altiplano-Puna Magmat Body". Magmat → Magma.
  • "At 9–31 kilometres (5.6–19.3 mi) depth". 9–31-kilometre (5.6–19.3 mi).
  • "One northeast-southwest trending line". En dash.
  • "Smaller scale structures at Panizos may reflect north-south and eastsoutheast-westnorthwest trending lineaments". En dashes and "eastsoutheast" and "westnorthwest" should be "east-southeast" and "west-northwest".
Geochronology
  • "Volcanic activity began during the Jurassic". Volcanic activity of what? The Central Volcanic Zone?
    Specified. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:22, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "During the late Miocene, subduction under the Puna". It's not clear what "Puna" is referring to here. Is it the Altiplano-Puna high plateau or the Altiplano-Puna volcanic complex?
  • "Volcanic activity shifted east into the Puna". Same as above.
    The Puna region. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:22, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "With the bulk dating to the late Miocene to Pliocene". I think the first "to" should be changed to "from".
  • "Tara and Puripicar Ignimbrites". I'm not sure if "ignimbrites" should be capitalized here.
    I think in these cases we do. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:22, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In Bolivia, about 8-5 million years ago Kari-Kari was active, 8.4-6.4 million years ago Morococala, 8-5 million years ago Los Frailes". En dashes.
  • "Volcanism declined during the past 4 million years". Declined where?
Composition
  • "And orthopyroxene rare". I think you mean are rare.
  • "Gold and silver deposits are found on the volcano, and an occurrence of antimony-copper-uranium has been described at Paicone." Has mineral exploration been done at the volcano?
    Probably, but the sources don't specify. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:22, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Eruption history
  • "12.4 million years old Cusi Cusi ignimbrite". 12.4-million-year-old.
  • "It is the source of two major ignimbrites: The first". I'm not sure if there should be a capital letter after the colon.
    I think it should. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:22, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "a total volume >300 cubic kilometres (72 cu mi)". A total volume of more than 300 cubic kilometres (72 cu mi).
  • "The >650 cubic kilometres (160 cu mi) Panizos (or Panizos II) Ignimbrite". The more than 650-square-kilometre (250 sq mi) Panizos (or Panizos II) Ignimbrite.
  • "The Panizos ignimbrite consists of crystal-rich". Should ignimbrite be capitalized here since Panizos Ignimbrite appears to be the name of an ignimbrite deposit?
  • "The Panizos ignimbrite is one of several "super-eruptions" in the Central Andes". See above and may be "is" should be replaced with "represents" since ignimbrite deposits are not eruptions on their own.
  • "Both units of the Panizos ignimbrite". See above.

That's all I've got. Volcanoguy 20:30, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Done save as commented. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:22, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Going to note here for @FAC coordinators: that I'll be spottily present in the next few weeks, so they can't count on me for source reviews during this time frame. I'll try to keep up with this FAC. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 19:45, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support. By the way, Volcanism of the Mount Edziza volcanic complex is still in need of a source review. Volcanoguy 16:24, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

[edit]

Coming up. —Kusma (talk) 08:49, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

More later! —Kusma (talk) 09:29, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Gorustovich 2011: incomplete bibliographic data (editor, publisher, location?) From this book?
    Seems like, so added. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 19:52, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Guzman 2017 needs a language tag.
    Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 19:52, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Jujuy: this is a bit muddled, |trans-title= translates the wrong thing?
    Hrm. This is a series, of which I am using the Jujuy member. I don't think there is a trans-series parameter? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 19:52, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You could fake it: |series=Zona de seguridad de fronteras y áreas de desarrollo de frontera [Border security zone and development areas]
    Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:15, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Which URLs have |url-access= parameters?
    None; I've left only the webpage URLs which are public. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 19:52, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Some have |hdl-access= though, so Guzman 2020, Kern 2016, Perkins 2016 and some others have little green open locks. Other URLs (DOIs mostly) do not have anything explaining access.
    This is another bot thing. I confess that in many cases I am not sure what the right parameter is. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:15, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mazzoni 1989: This seems a better link than "via ResearchGate".
    It is however not the page I used; probably because of Ctrl+F problems. ~~
    Then link the page you used.
    Added. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:15, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ort 1989 does not have a ResearchGate link, do you mean [5]?
  • Ort 1993 is not "via ResearchGate", and neither is Salisbury 2011.
    Yeah, I don't usually link to the ResearchGate page itself. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 19:52, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I would suggest to remove the via or add the link. From the documentation for the citation templates, I do not think this is how |via= is supposed to be used.
    Added links. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:15, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Servicio Geológico Minero Argentino 1996: there seems to be duplicated information in the citation, "(pdf) (Report) (in Spanish)" looks a bit odd, and the link does not go to a PDF. Add publisher location (Buenos Aires)? I understand which file you mean by "Map_PLV" but strictly speaking none of the files has this name.
    Aye, the URL points to an intermediary page. I think the parentheses are a matter of the template. Is there a better title for the MAP_PLV? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 19:52, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You could get rid of |format=pdf to make it less visually jarring. I can't seem to access the page at the moment, so I don't have a good suggestion what to do about the file name.

Sources are either scientific journals / books / very few conferences or government map services, all fine in terms of reliability. For formatting issues see above. Happy to do spot checks on request. —Kusma (talk) 14:27, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by David Fuchs

[edit]

Look for comments tomorrow. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 14:57, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ? Gog the Mild (talk) 20:27, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • My overarching concern is with accessibility to the average reader getting into the article. At the minimum our articles should be basically comprehensible to someone without linking away, and I don't think this article manages that right now. For example, the article starts with <green>Cerro Panizos is a late Miocene-age shield-shaped volcano consisting of ignimbrites, two calderas (a depression formed by the collapse of a volcano) and a group of lava domes in the Potosi Department of Bolivia and the Jujuy Province of Argentina.</green> This is a really long, hard-to-parse sentence where you explain what calderas are, but not what ignimbrites are (which I would wager far fewer people would have any idea about.) Why not restructure to the shorter <green>Cerro Panizos is a late Miocene-age shield-shaped volcano spanning parts of Bolivia and Argentina.</green> or similar and then start giving a more detailed explanation of what it encompasses? (Also at first blush I'm not sure why the ignimbrites are the most important thing to mention, anyhow, as part of a volcanic feature.)
    • Once you're in the body, taking a few more words to explain stuff like ignimbrite (even just "ignimbrite, or volcanic rock") would do wonders.
  • Did that small rewrite, but I'll caution that I am not that great at spotting terms that need to be explained. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 18:00, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Geography/Geomorphology section is a pain to read with the referencing as it stands. Readers shouldn't have to wade through as many as six references or explanatory notes on top of the dense list of units of measurement to try and read things. Sticking all these in a REFBUNDLE would be a much cleaner and clearer option.
    • Did a bit of refbundling, but more can be done if we remove the elevation estimates. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:54, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      • I think it's still a readability issue, especially with the time periods added as notes instead of put inline in prose. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 21:48, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        • That sounds to me like it'd decrease readability, if people reading about the volcano suddenly fall into a discussion of how long a given time period was. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:03, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
          • I don't think you need the level of detail provided versus giving a general timeframe to orient readers. C.f. Instead of a superscript note that has the precise time period for the Jurassic you can just say the Jurassic Period (c. 201–145 million years ago) or something similar My overall point with the above is that this is a highly technical article with a lot of jargon, but the referencing scheme and long sentences are absolutely making it more of a pain in the ass to grok the important details. Having 3–8 superscripted notes or references in a single sentence is absolutely an example of bad citation presentation, and on the whole the Geomorphology section especially is just downright unpleasant to read to my eyes, and hasn't materially improved since my initial comment. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 18:01, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
            I get your overall point, but I don't agree that spelling out the numbers - even in rounded form - would make the page more readable. I've instead shuffled the citations around in that section so that they are limited to end of sentence, and split one lengthy sentence. Is it better now? If so, I can apply the same treatment to other sections too. In my experience, some people don't approve of lists of names being in bullet point format in FAC. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:37, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
            • It's better, but the readability and accessibility concerns are two separate things; I'm arguing that having to look elsewhere to grok the basic timeframe of what's being discussed is not user-friendly, separately from the presentation being harder to read. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 17:09, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
              Ah, I tend to subsume this particular "accessibility" concern under "readability" since it concerns how people read the article. Still, I think even so the price to pay is too high. This probably needs a third opinion. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 18:18, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Is the precise height of each dome really important, or can they be summarized as "<listing of domes> ranging from X to Y tall"?
  • "Cerro San Matias borders Panizos to the north" — I assume these are other volcanos or at least mountains, but it's never clarified.
  • "The only vegetation consisting of cushion plants, grasses and shrubs. " consists, surely?
    Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 18:00, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Volcanic activity in the region began during the Jurassic in the Cordillera de la Costa and has migrated eastward since then" Would be nice to clarify for people when the Jurassic Period was. Ditto for other time periods where the text isn't specifying a general time frame. At the very least, since the Miocene is getting constantly referenced, the time period should be clarified.
    Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 18:00, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "During the 21st century, ongoing uplift was discovered at Uturuncu" - what does this mean? Is it indicative of something?
    It probably signals the entry of new magma. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 18:00, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Both rocks define a peraluminous potassium-rich calc-alkaline suite." - don't know what rocks "define".
    Specified. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 18:00, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

--Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 17:07, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ? Gog the Mild (talk) 16:45, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi David, any further comments to come on this one? Gog the Mild (talk) 13:01, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not particularly. Jo-Jo and I disagree on the crit1 stuff and outside additional feedback on that point I don't feel comfortable supporting or opposing. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 16:54, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Penitentes

[edit]

Some comments from a brief non-expert pass through this.

  • a late Miocene-age shield-shaped volcano - But not a shield volcano, I assume? It trips me up a little bit. I'm sure there are only so many ways to describe a broad and sloping volcanic complex, though.
  • Incapillo is one of several ignimbrite or caldera systems that, along with 44 active stratovolcanoes, are part of the CVZ. - When I read this I struggled to understand the relevance. Is "Incapillo" supposed to be "Cerro Panizos"? Or is Incapillo related to Cerro Panizos beyond them both being part of the CVZ? If so, that could use more explanation + a link to Incapillo.
  • Throughout the article Panizos ignimbrite and Panizos Ignimbrite are used interchangeably. I would pick one version of the capitalization and run with it if I'm not misinterpreting those as referring to the same thing.

— Penitentes (talk) 20:33, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, not a shield volcano as these are defined as flat volcanoes formed by lava flows. Incapillo seems like a copypaste error. Standardized the spelling, save for the image as it's more descriptive there. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 19:10, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@FAC coordinators: is it OK if I ping some participants in Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Mount Hudson/archive1? This is rather slow-moving, and I think we need outside views on the disagreement between me and David above. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:54, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don’t see why not. FrB.TG (talk) 08:10, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:26, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

SC Coming here because I was pinged. Just looking at the discussion above first, my opinion is below, but I'll come back for a more complete review shortly.

Looking at it from the point of an ignorant reader (which I really am with these things), I do find some of the notes/bits of blue a little distracting. Partly it's because of where they are placed. Having them after Cerro Panizos and Cerro Panizos is part of the issue – maybe moving them to the end of the sentence may be more helpful. If you combine the refs using the {{sfnm}} template to slim down the number of blue digits at the end of the sentence to leave one number and the note, it would make it a bit more manageable. Thus:

Caption text
Header text Header text Header text
Cerro Panizos[a] lies in the Cordillera de Lipez mountain range of the Andean Altiplano-Puna high plateau.[2][3] becomes Cerro Panizos lies in the Cordillera de Lipez mountain range of the Andean Altiplano-Puna high plateau.[4][b]
Cerro Panizos[c] proper is a 5,228-metre (17,152 ft), 5,360-metre (17,590 ft) or 5,494-metre-high (18,025 ft) lava dome in the southeastern semicircle.[6][7][8] becomes Cerro Panizos proper is a 5,228-metre (17,152 ft), 5,360-metre (17,590 ft) or 5,494-metre-high (18,025 ft) lava dome in the southeastern semicircle.[9][d]
Using a range conversion would also work, so the above becomes Cerro Panizos proper is a 5,228-to-5,494-metre (17,152–18,025 ft)-high lava dome in the southeastern semicircle. [9][e]
Extended content
Sources

  1. ^ a b Salisbury et al. 2011, p. 15.
  2. ^ Vaquer, Eguia & Carreras 2018, p. 56.
  3. ^ Ort et al. 1989, p. 291.
  4. ^ Vaquer, Eguia & Carreras 2018, p. 56; Ort et al. 1989, p. 291.
  5. ^ a b c Ahumada, Ibáñez Palacios & Páez 2010, Figura 1.
  6. ^ Ort 1993, p. 224.
  7. ^ Coira et al. 2004, p. 110.
  8. ^ Echevarría 1963, p. 442.
  9. ^ a b c Ort 1993, p. 224; Coira et al. 2004, p. 110; Echevarría, p. 442; 3y-1963.
  1. ^ Sometimes the name is incorrectly applied to Laguna Colorada, which is a different volcano west of Panizos.[1]
  2. ^ Sometimes the name is incorrectly applied to Laguna Colorada, which is a different volcano west of Panizos.[1]
  3. ^ A second 5,259 metres (17,254 ft) high mountain named Cerro Panizos is located south of the volcanic complex.[5]
  4. ^ A second 5,259 metres (17,254 ft) high mountain named Cerro Panizos is located south of the volcanic complex.[5]
  5. ^ The heights are given variously as 5,228 metres (17,152 ft), 5,360 metres (17,590 ft) or 5,494 metres (18,025 ft). [9] A second 5,259 metres (17,254 ft) high mountain named Cerro Panizos is located south of the volcanic complex.[5]

It just makes the whole sentence easier to scan through without tripping over the note at the beginning and without losing any references. Having several sentences with big clusters of numbers at the end of them does stand out a lot - there are three with three citations in that section that stand out a bit. Just my opinion and others may see it all differently. - SchroCat (talk) 14:34, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've changed some of these footnotes and also applied sfnm to the multiple cites; how does it look? Kind of a shame that sfnm needs the entire 1a1 thing, though. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 06:38, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from RoySmith

[edit]

Just a few random ideas to improve readability:

  • Cerro Panizos[c] proper is a 5,228-metre (17,152 ft), 5,360-metre (17,590 ft) or 5,494-metre-high (18,025 ft) ... Can you just say "approximately 5300-meter (xxx ft)" and then have a footnote which details the various values given by the three sources?
    Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 06:48, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • (often ephemeral[20]) I think the style guide prefers the citation after the paren.
    Bit concerned that then people will assume the reference applies to the content before the parenthese too. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 06:48, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, I feel your pain on that one. RoySmith (talk) 12:36, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • most days of the year have frosts I'd drop "of the year", and it probably makes more sense to say "most nights" rather than "most days".
    Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 06:48, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Animals include ... Birds include Birds are animals. Also, I find the long multi-level list ("the large guanacos, llamas, tarucas and vicuñas,[33] the smaller chinchillas, vizcachas and numerous mice genera, and the carnivorous Andean mountain cats, cougars, culpeos, Pampas cats and South American gray foxes") difficult to read. It's partly that it's long and partly that some of the "and"s go with different levels. You've got a similar problem in the next sentence. One "and" joins "Andean fmaingos", "Chilean flamingos", with "James's flamingos. The other "and" joins "flamingos", "geese", "rheas", and "ducks". You have to read with care to parse it properly.
    Did a recast, but I am not sure it solves the problem. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 06:48, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • a giant pile of rock-magma mush is "mush" a technical word?
    Yes, but it means pretty much the same as colloquial. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 06:48, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • 9–31-kilometre I suppose this is technically correct, but the juxtaposition of the en-dash and the hyphen looks funny.
    Probably, but I confess that endash/hyphen are among the things I am less familiar with. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 06:48, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • up to a billion years old,[59] but it reached its present-day thickness only during the late Cenozoic for those of us who are not geologists, it would help to give some context to "late Cenozoic". Is that not quite a billion years ago, or half a billion, or a tiny fraction of a billion?
    Specified. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 06:48, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • one northeast-–southwest trending line you've got a double-hyphen; I think you want some flavor of longer dash.
    Is this where one uses an en dash? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 06:48, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • with several recognizable "flare-ups" why the scare quotes?
    Removed them. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 06:48, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's it; just a few things I spotted on a quick read. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RoySmith (talk • contribs)

Closing comment: Unfortunately, this has been open for more than three months and hasn't made any progress for the past two weeks. I'm archiving this nomination, noting that the usual two-week wait before another nomination will apply.

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Cerro_Panizos/archive1&oldid=1242651324"