Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Socompa/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 Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 30 November 2024 [1].

Socompa

[edit]
Nominator(s): Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:56, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a volcano along the border of Argentina and Chile, which has been noted for the giant landslide that removed part of the structure six thousand years ago, the occurrence of fumaroles with mosses and a neighbouring important pass between the two countries. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:56, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from Graham Beards

[edit]

I have taken the liberty of making a few edits to the article rather than list suggestions here. I have a problem with this phrase: "The collapse removed about 70° (about 9 kilometres (5.6 mi) of circumference and 7.5 kilometres (4.7 mi) of radius[45]) of Socompa's circumference on its northwestern side". It's the "of radius of..circumference" that is confusing me. Is it just me? Graham Beards (talk) 17:17, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am trying to say that the landslide took out part of the volcano, like you'd cut off a slice of cake or pizza, equivalent to 70° of the circumference. The 9km refers to the width of the slice and 7.5km to its length. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:33, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps you could just say what volume of the volcano was lost as a percentage (on the volcano's northwestern side). Graham Beards (talk) 16:49, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that this can simply be computed. Is there an alternative way to formulate the slice bit? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:59, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is circumference is not measured in degrees. Why not just say "a 70° sector"? It's simpler and much easier to understand. Graham Beards (talk) 11:18, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Did an edit, is it better now? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 11:34, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I can live with that. I am happy to add my support now. Graham Beards (talk) 11:45, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

HF

[edit]
  • Is there nothing that topographical dominance could be linked to in that footnote? Having a redlink for a not well-known geological term is not useful for reader understanding.
    This is User:MAXIMOKAUSCH's addition, and I'm afraid it means no more to me than to you. Unfortunately, I don't even know where to begin when looking for sources on mountaineering terminology. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:59, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In my view "with a topographical dominance of 12.08%" should be removed. I don't see how it is helpful to a reader. In fact, given the improbability of the source being considered high quality, I would remove the whole foot note. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:55, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Removed it in the interim. Regarding andes-specialists, it seems to be the page of Maximo Kausch and his team. They have been referenced by other sources for climbing exploits in the Andes and elsewhere ... does this make 'em a subject matter experts and therefore RS? I don't think this kind of information is usually discussed outside of circles concerned with mountaineering records. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:23, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not convinced that this would be WP:DUEWEIGHT here, given that such information tends to be ignored by the scholarly sources. Hog Farm Talk 03:57, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am not certain that scholarly sources alone determine due weight here, though - mountaineering (the other important human activity on mountains) isn't a scientific discipline. Still, only borderline RS. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:51, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think that's it from me. Hog Farm Talk 21:21, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

Comments from Hurricanehink

[edit]

Support. I figured I'd review since I have an FAC of my own.

Lead
  • Since you link Bolivia in the lead, maybe also link Argentina and Chile? I get why you didn't, since you linked them in the infobox. And speaking of, what about linking Central Volcanic Zone in the lead?
    Hmm, CVZ at this moment is still a redirect to Andean Volcanic Belt which is the preceding link. Granted, it's a redirect that could be expanded to an article in the future. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:41, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "about 44 active volcanoes" - I gotta ask, why is "about" used here when 44 isn't a number rounded to a nearest 5 or 10? I'm guessing you mean something like "an estimated 44 active volcanoes", since there's probably a good guess for the number, but it's not precise?
    So, the source says 44 but a few more volcanoes have been discovered since then. Would "more than 40" work better? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:41, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I like the stuff about the collapse 7,200 years ago in the lead. I just feel that the second sentence is too long, and that it's out of order. The part about the collapse being "among the largest known with a volume of 19.2 cubic kilometres (4.6 cu mi) " - that's all interesting and good stuff, and I think should be before the Mt. St. Helens bit personally, but either way, the lead could be improved here.
    Rearranged a bit. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:41, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Notable are the large toreva blocks which were left behind within the collapse crater." - the "notable are" construction is difficult to understand for non-English readers, or even people who don't have a great sense of English. Could you dumb this down a bit and make the sentence structure a bit easier? "The collapsed crater left behind large toreva blocks", or something.
    Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:41, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Socompa is also noteworthy for the high-altitude biotic communities that are bound to fumaroles on the mountain and form well above the regular vegetation in the region." - again, cool stuff, but could you split this into two sentences so you could expand on this a bit? That would make the 3rd paragraph feel a bit more complete.
    Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:41, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Geography and geomorphology
  • "due east of Monturaqui" - wish you mentioned that this was an impact crater, that's cool shit
    'fraid that the source refers to the railway station with that name, not the crater which is north of Socompa and much farther away. I've rewritten this. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:41, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The mountain is considered to be an apu by the local population, and Inca constructions have been reported either from its slopes[10][11] or from its summit." - any Simpsons fan with ADHD is going to click on the link to figure out what an apu is. I'd add the explanation for what it is. Also, the second part "Inca constructions" feels like a completely different thought.
    Well, the Inca constructions exist because of the mountain's status as apu, and there isn't much detail in the sources about these constructions, so putting it elsewhere would leave it pretty stubby. A sourceable definition of "apu" is hard to come by. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:41, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "5,600 to 5,800 metres (18,400–19,000 ft)" - is there a reason you use a different construction for metric versus imperial? You could do "to" or the dash for both of them.
    No, changed this. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:41, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is there a reason you don't abbreviate to km at a certain point?
    Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:41, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The existence of a lake in the summit area within the scarps at an elevation of 5,300 metres (17,400 ft) has been reported." - is there a lake or not? I'm not sure why the "has been reported" is needed. Also, is that "Laguna Socompa? If so, the parts about the lake should be together.
    No, Laguna Socompa is at the foot of the volcano. "has been reported" because many other sources don't mention its existence. It might be ephemeral or somesuch. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:41, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "On the northeastern flank a pumice deposit is clearly visible." - not to someone who's reading the Wikipedia article. Is "clearly visible" the best description?
    Rewritten. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:41, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The collapse removed a 70° sector (about 9 kilometres (5.6 mi) of circumference and 7.5 kilometres (4.7 mi) of radius[42]) on Socompa's northwestern side, descended over a vertical distance of about 3,000 metres (9,800 ft) and spread over distances of over 40 kilometres (25 mi),[25] at a modelled speed of c. 100 metres per second (220 mph)." - awesome stuff, but that's a lot for one sentence.
    Split it. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:41, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The occurrence of the large landslide at Mount St. Helens probably aided in the subsequent identification of the Socompa deposit as a landslide remnant." - "probably"?
    Already under discussion in Hog's section. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:41, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • under the weight of the volcano these layers can deform and "flow" outward from the edifice - why the quotation marks?
    It's a very slow type of flow, akin to glass or rock deforming over time. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:41, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "petajoules " - should link to "Joule"
    Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:41, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "A 200-kilometre (120 mi) long lineament known as the Socompa Lineament is associated with the volcano." - I don't know what this means unless I click on "lineament"
    Clarified this a bit. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:41, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In addition, directly north-northwest of Socompa lie three anticlines probably formed under the influence of the mass of both Socompa and Pajonales: The Loma del Inca, Loma Alta and La Flexura." - similar here, no idea what it means unless I click on "anticlines"
    Footnoted. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:41, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The fumaroles on Socompa also feature stands of bryophytes such as liverworts and mosses[e] as well as lichens and algae, and animals have been found in the stands.[102][103] These stands" - wait what are "stands"? There's not even a link here.
    In the sense of "grove"; how does one say groups of mosses. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:41, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "After the sector collapse 7,200 years ago, activity continued filling the collapse scar. The explosion craters on the summit are the youngest volcanic landforms on Socompa,[6] one dome in the scar has been dated to 5,910 ± 430 years ago.[112] An eruption 7,220 ± 100 years before present produced the El Túnel pyroclastic deposit on the western side of Socompa.[113] The youngest eruption was dated to have occurred 5,250 BCE." - consistency with dating would be nice. The last one "youngest eruption" would've been 7,250 years ago, which would be before the sector collapse by... 50 years? Or potentially the cause of the collapse, right?
    I've recast this whole thing. GVP hasn't updated yet. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:41, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In 2011, the Chilean mining company Escondida Mining was considering building a geothermal power plant on Socompa to supply energy;[125] the Argentine Servicio Geológico Minero agency started exploration work in January 2018 for geothermal power production." - I was curious what's happened since. this says that the work completed in 2020, with an estimate for how much power could be created. That's from 2023.
    Doesn't seem like it amounted to much, going by recent sources. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:41, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

All in all a good read. Pretty easy to follow, just a few spots I recommend including a bit of basic words instead of forcing the reader to rely on links. That's the main recurring theme I noticed. Lemme know if you have any questions. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 19:38, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for all of the fixes/replies, happy to support. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 21:05, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Volcanoguy

[edit]
Introduction
Geography and geomorphology

That's all I have to comment on. Volcanoguy 21:45, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Volcanoguy 19:43, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

[edit]

I get the feeling the nomintor in areas doest fully understand the sources; apart from typical not first language issues there seems to be a wood from the trees issue. The statement "not witnessed in historical records" about an event that occurred 7,200 years ago gives pause, as does the fact that the dating is so low in the lead, and in the lead the geography is confusing. And the focus on measurements and all the overcitation is confusing and missing the point. However, I do respect this nominator's work, and hope they can meet these general points. Have been making trivial edits and enjoying this facinating article very much otherwise. Ceoil (talk) 16:51, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I know that arguing examples isn't normally the right way to go about this, but I don't think that we can assume people know that events 7,200 years ago have no historical records left b/c historical records don't go that far back. And the "activity" - unlike the collapse - has only been dated recently. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:42, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also, a collapse and an eruption are definitively not the same thing. I get the point about the (over)use of "collapse", though. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 18:06, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Jo Jo, hopeful and confident this will get over the line, and I well know the dept of research that wnt into this. I'll better articulate prose issues in a few days. As I say, the article is fascinating, and am very happy it has been brought to such a standard. Its also very impressive the expertise of the reviews above. I'm just stalling for now. Ceoil (talk) 18:25, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ceoil, please check your spelling before publishing your changes; I've had to correct some of your typos. Volcanoguy 18:54, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thats fair. Will post here only re rewording before my eventual support. Ceoil (talk) 23:16, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Ceoil, any further input to come on this one? Cheers. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:05, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

[edit]
Formatting
  • The capitalisation is a little off occasionally. Most is in sentence case, although a few bits of title case pop up occasionally, including FN14, 21, 22, 23, 24, 97 (best check there are others too).
    This is where ESL hits me - what is title case and what is sentence case? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 13:39, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Title case: "The Quick Brown Fox Jumps over the Lazy Dog"
    Sentence case: "The quick brown fox jumps over the lazy dog"
    I've linked the terms above just to clarify with added detail - SchroCat (talk) 14:23, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Again, the sources also need a quick look through to ensure they're all consistent.
Sources
  • I'm not a subject specialist – far from it – but from my additional searches, I've not seen any obvious sources that have been missed.
  • All the existing sources are reliable and relevant

- SchroCat (talk) 15:47, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Can I ask for a second opinion on the Peaklist sauce? Even conceding that mountaineering information isn't usually written in peer reviewed academic sources, I am not sure that it is a HQRS. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 13:39, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would say it's borderline and I thought about it when I did the review, but passed it, given it's written by named individuals and there is editorial oversight on the site. - SchroCat (talk) 14:32, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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/Socompa/archive1&oldid=1260478231"