Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Pali-Aike volcanic field/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 promoted by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 13 January 2022 [1].

Pali-Aike volcanic field

[edit]
Nominator(s): Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:26, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a volcanic field in southernmost Argentina and Chile, which was active until the last few thousands of years. It features numerous lakes - including Laguna Potrok Aike where paleoclimatic research has been carried out - and caves, which were inhabited by the earliest people of the region. Editorial note: I've been sparing with archeological and paleoclimatological details in this article as it's mainly about the volcanic aspects. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:26, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

Comments Support from Opabinia

[edit]
  • Any chance of a map, other than clicking through the coordinates link?
  • The top image is pretty, but it's a little hard to see the texture at thumbnail size. The lead is fairly short and you're not constrained by infobox width, so displaying the image wider seems like a good use of space.
    Added an infobox with a map. I figure one might add an El Tatio like map instead, if people prefer that. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 14:19, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    You mean like this one? No preference for me, I like either one. It took me a surprisingly long time on first look to realize just how far south this was. Opabinia regalis (talk) 07:35, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I know nothing about volcanoes, so it's not surprising I think the lead is a little jargon-heavy. Brief explanations of some of the relevant terms would help, especially readers on mobile who can't use popups to get a quick look at a linked term. Particularly "...pyroclastic cones, scoria cones, maars and associated lava flows. These vents..." - so all those are types of vents? Or they form at/as a result of vents?
    Added some footnotes. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 14:19, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Humans have lived there for thousands of years, does anyone live there now? Later in the article sheep farming is mentioned, is it anyone's residence or just a farm area? Even though the article is not focused on human habitation, I think that material is a little thin overall, and it's not clear if that's lack of sources or an editorial choice. Even brief mention of which indigenous groups lived in the area (whoever spoke Tehuelche?) would be useful. Down in the human history section there's some passive voice (eg "...were used as red pigments") but not who did those things. Is that known?
    As far as I know the area is currently uninhabited, although people do come there. The dearth of archaeological information is a bit an editorial choice - this is an article about the volcano rather than its caves and archeological information could quickly overwhelm the article if I were to cover it comprehensively. Incidentally, I looked at some of the sources discussing pigments and lithics and didn't find much discussion on who used them, only the implications for the first peopling of the Americas. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 14:19, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Seems like some of what I was thinking of is actually covered in Fell Cave now that I've looked at it. Opabinia regalis (talk) 07:35, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The size of the field isn't mentioned till the "Local" section. The lead is pretty short and has room to be expanded with a few more details like this - eg size and number of vents, proximity of cities, current human activities in the area, presence of the national park.
    Added it. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 14:19, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Consider splitting up the body into smaller sections with more specific headers. Again thinking of reading on mobile, where you don't get a nested TOC and only have the top-level headers to decide which sections to read. Currently there's "Geology and structure" followed by "Geology", which doesn't say much about what's in those sections or what's different about them.
    That section needed a better name, which I've done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 14:19, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Consider moving that first paragraph of the "Regional" section to its own section. This is the only part that's primarily about where this place is in relation to human activities (border locations, cities, roads, etc) rather than geological features.
    Done, but I wonder if there is a better name for "Human geography" Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 14:19, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm sure it makes sense to a volcano expert, but to me the current organization and sectioning of the material is hard to follow. What's covered in the "Local" section feels like the basics about what it's like now, but to get there you first have to get through the "Regional" section's second paragraph that covers how it was formed - except we go back to the formation/history again at the beginning of "Geology". I don't know enough about the topic to relate these two sections; the Geology section says volcanism was only possible after "lateral spreading", but is that the same thing as the hypotheses about slab windows or slab rollback mentioned earlier? You might consider moving some paragraphs around to organize either chronologically, or by grouping the material about the current place first ("Local" and "Composition" sections) followed by the historical material on its formation and geologic record. Placing "Eruptive history" after climate also seems unexpected - this seems like a continuation of the geology material and doesn't depend on having read about climate and vegetation.
    I admit that this structure is mainly derived from Calabozos and Cerro Azul (Chile volcano) and isn't really anything special. I've moved the climate section down and swapped around "regional" and "local". I do have the slight objection that since the volcanic field isn't extinct and the geological processes still ongoing, that part needs to be part of the geology and not presented as if it were history. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 14:19, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    FWIW I don't get the sense from the current organization that it's not ongoing (more the opposite, in the next bullet, though that's cleaned up now :) I did have a related question, though - the eruptive history section says "The volcano was rated Argentina's 18th (out of 38) most dangerous volcano". But isn't a field multiple volcanoes? Is it a specific one that's potentially active, or is the ranking of groups? Opabinia regalis (talk) 07:35, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    No, just loose usage of "volcano" which I've replaced with "volcanic field". Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:10, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some of the text is written in the present tense and if you're skimming it gives the impression of current activity, which I don't think is the case - eg "The vents are origins of lava flows, which sometimes breach the vents."
    Yeah, that sentence and some others were oddballs; I've changed the tense. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 14:19, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Given that windstreak is a redlink and they're apparently uncommon on Earth, I think we need a clearer description in the article. Especially since googling the term does turn up the Mars features, but also a whole bunch of irrelevant stuff like businesses and social media accounts using that name.
    Footnoted. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 14:19, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • What does "strongly primitive magma signature" mean?
    Yuck. The habit of sources to use the term "primitive" and "evolved" without any explanation is annoying; I've removed it completely as I can't find a good explanation. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 14:19, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Primitive magma (effectively primitive mantle) is a magma composition thought to reflect the composition of the mantle right after the formation of the Earth and is inferred from studies on chondrite meteorites. Conversely, evolved magma is magma that has changed from this initial primitive composition. This differentiation is usually a result of fractional crystallization. Such magmas will characteristically have lower MgO and/or higher SiO2 relative to primitive magmas. Maxim(talk) 19:54, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Maxim:Sorry for being unclear: The problem isn't so much that I don't know what a primitive magma is, but rather that I don't have a source at hand. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:21, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • There's only one note, and it's about a fairly small point that seems like it could be integrated into the text without much trouble. With its own top-level section for this single sentence, it ends up disproportionately prominent, rather than the small side point that was presumably intended.
    Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 14:19, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do you have any numbers on temperature, precipitation, etc to add to the descriptions in the climate section? "Mild winters" and "close to Antarctica" together seem surprising. Is it mild as in "you'll need a light jacket" or "well, at least it's not Antarctica"?
    OK, this one has a source problem: Zolitschka 2006 mentions the Rio Gallegos records but also says Both mean annual temperature and annual precipitation for the Potrok Aike meteorological station are 30–40% lower than the weather station in the coastal city of Rı ́o Gallegos. but does not mention what the Potrok Aike records are. This one does have some of these records but they are pretty incomplete and not summarized. The National Meteorological Service has apparently no records for Potrok Aike and this one lacks them too. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 14:19, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The phrasing "Present-day animal species on the Chilean side include..." makes it sound like the critters don't have passports and can't cross the border. Guessing this is a source issue? Maybe something like "Animal species present in the Chilean national park" or whatever makes sense to explain the source of the information.
    Yes, source issue. Thanks for that rewrite; it's in. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 14:19, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The vegetation is not free of human influences" - by this point in the article we know the place has been inhabited for a long time, would it be expected to be "free of human influences"? Just seems like a odd way to put it.
    Rewrote this a bit. I think that unlike say for the Maori there isn't much research on the environmental impact of early humans here. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 14:19, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "archeological artifacts such as obsidian" - presumably something made from obsidian? What does it mean to say use was limited? (Especially, does that mean humans didn't use their obsidian objects much, or they mostly got them from somewhere else, or the record is poor?)
    I've recast this sentence and expanded it. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 14:19, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Category:Volcanic fields has 84 pages in it (did you write most of them? :p) - anything specific about Espenberg volcanic field that makes it an interesting see-also link? Looks like a lot of those articles are about areas closer to this one.
    That's because of they have very large maars - probably better to cover that inside the article, though? (I believe I wrote/expanded about half of the articles in Category:Volcanic fields) Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 14:19, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The lead mentions xenoliths and one specific maar as notable features - are large/lots of maars also noteworthy? It would be interesting to include, but I think you could also just put a note after the see also entry along the lines of "...another volcanic field with large maars" or something. Opabinia regalis (talk) 07:35, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Xenoliths are pretty common so nothing special. I added the explanation. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:10, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why are the full bibliography entries in a section titled "External links"?
    Retitled. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 14:19, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the length, mostly small stuff on the theme of "I know nothing about volcanoes". Opabinia regalis (talk) 22:12, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Opabinia regalis:Mostly done, thanks for going into detail though we sweat the small stuff at FA(C). For the record, this article is skimpy on paleoclimatic information (Laguna Potrok Aike has yielded a lot of such information) and archeological one (ditto for Cueva Fell and pals) because it's focused on volcanism and covering these in the full detail would likely overwhelm the article - I'd estimate that a full coverage of both would likely triple the length of the article. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 14:19, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Had a re-read and I support now, with one small nitpick that there's still one reference to "the primitiveness of the magmas" which needs some kind of context - a note or link (is this the same as primitive mantle?). Otherwise looks good to me! Opabinia regalis (talk) 09:08, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Well, upon rechecking the book Maxim mentioned in an email it seems like there is a vagueish definition of "primitive", which I've now footnoted. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 13:04, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Maxim

[edit]
  • I made a handful of minor edits (typo fixes and similar).
  • Who is the target audience of the article? My best guesses would be either (a) a layman looking to learn more by following a link from elsewhere or (b) a geologist at any level (undergraduate and upward). In the latter case, it may not be entirely comprehensive. For example, I don't think the article doesn't really go about geological significance of Pali-Aike. For example, some points that D'Orazio et al. (2000) note in their introduction that I don't think are reflected in the article:
    • Pali-Aike is located in an unusual geological setting, as it's near two different types of plate boundaries
    • There is some significance to Pali-Aike when it comes to answering broader geological questions (e.g. evolutionary model for southernmost South America, significance of continental alkaline basalts in a back-arc setting).
    • There's considerable number of citations to this paper (and other works by D'Orazio), particularly with relevance to alkaline basalts, which is suggests there is some geological "unusualness" at Pali-Aike that's not really emphasized here.
  • That said, I'm interested in hearing back about the target audience. I would say it's more targeted to the layman right now, and targeting more towards geologist would need to restructure the article to emphasize the tectonic and geochemical significance of the volcanic field. Right now, I think those aspects are not treated as thoroughly, as opposed to, for example, a descriptive approach towards certain geomorphological features (as in the geography & structure section). Maxim(talk) 15:53, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Maxim:It is primarily aimed at laypeople, although I think I can accomodate some of that stuff from that source. I admit that from the other sources I get the impression that back-arc volcanic fields often are a little "special" so the significance of this one might have passed over my head. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:18, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Could it cater for both laypeople and geologists? For example could you make the lead easier (maybe by integrating the footnotes) and add more info for geologists into the body? Not sure what other reviewers think but a fourth para in the lead would be OK I guess Chidgk1 (talk) 13:13, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    It could (but not by integrating the footnotes; they would just jumble the text. The footnotes are a compromise between adding an explanation and not having the explanation distract readers) and I've expanded some of the geological information on slab windows and why Pali-Aike is a volcano. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:10, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi Maxim, I was wondering if you felt in a position to either support or oppose this nomination? Obviously, neither is obligatory. Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:46, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Coord notes

[edit]

No supports after 3 weeks. May be archived in the future if there is not progress towards promotion. (t · c) buidhe 20:15, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Opabinia regalis and Maxim:. Also, buidhe I take it is fine to ping the people who worked on my past FACses? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 20:36, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it is fine to hit up anyone for reviews assuming you ask for a review (as opposed to support). (t · c) buidhe 20:38, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Done for all of them who partook in my last two FACses. Wrote something slightly different for Femkemilene because of the topic of our last conversation. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:45, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I meant to give it a re-read from the top this weekend, but got wrapped up in end-of-year stuff at work. Give me till Friday? Opabinia regalis (talk) 05:16, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think that works. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:45, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Jo-Jo Eumerus: sorry for the slow reply, I've been distracted on many fronts. You mention that you may be able to incorporate information [here, but I don't think you have? If not, do you still intend to do so? Maxim(talk) 18:07, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Maxim:Er, I did, actually. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 19:43, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Bah, I think I looked last when you pinged me on the 15th and there was no change then. Sorry, Maxim(talk) 20:02, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Chidgk1

[edit]

Chidgk1 (talk) 12:23, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from Kavyansh

[edit]
Part I
[edit]

That is on a quick read. Sorry, but aside these inconsistencies and over-linking, as a causal reader, I found the article a bit difficult for me to understand. There are many technical terms, even in the lead, which, while linked, doesn't really help the reader. Can we simplify it? – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 11:26, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Done to here. I've footnoted many of the technical terms but it will be difficult to dispense with them altogether, as many cannot be readily replaced with synonyms w/o either including inaccuracies or distracting people with an explanation. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 13:05, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Looks better, will take another look in a day or two. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 14:54, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Part II
[edit]

Sorry for the delay.

That is it – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 15:53, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - pass

[edit]

Will do one, either today or tomorrow. Recusing as coordinator. Hog Farm Talk 15:14, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

So sorry I'm not now getting to this - was way busier this weekend than expected.

Hog Farm Talk 21:56, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Funk

[edit]

Comments Support from Moisejp

[edit]

Hi Jo-Jo, I saw your request for reviewers a while back. Sorry I wasn't able to get to this until now. I will happily review. Am working my way through the article.

  • "The individual volcanoes are subdivided into three groups, which are referred to as "U2" (the older centres) and "U3" (for the more recent vents); the plateau lavas are hence called "U1"." This seems to be written confusedly. The three groups are U1, U2, U3? But the "which are referred to" clause only lists two kinds. Of course, U1 is subsequently mentioned, but it would be clearer if it was included within the framework of the "which are referred to" clause. Moisejp (talk) 03:31, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Rewrote this. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 12:03, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Their activity began 16 million years ago, when the Chile Ridge collided with the Peru–Chile Trench and thus caused a tear in the subducting slab and the formation of a slab window beneath Patagonia;[40] later it was suggested that slab rollback might instead be the mechanism by which volcanism is triggered in the Pali-Aike region." In the timeline as is, it jumps from 16 million years ago to someone "later" suggesting another theory. I think there is an intended implied idea that in recent history the earlier theory was the collision–slab window theory, and the later theory was the slab rollback theory. But as it is, I'd argue the current wording doesn't really work. Moisejp (talk) 05:01, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I did a small rewrite; the source says "some workers" so I decided to not imply that it is the more modern theory, such a wording might imply a higher acceptance than it actually has. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 14:14, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As I've mentioned in previous reviews of Jo-Jo's nominations, I don't know much about volcanoes, but I have read through twice (making several small edits), and based on the prose and seeming comprehensiveness, I believe this is now FA quality. I support.

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/Pali-Aike_volcanic_field/archive1&oldid=1069429750"