Wikipedia:Peer review/Huaynaputina/archive1

Huaynaputina

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion is closed.

I've listed this article for peer review because it was at FAC and folks thought it needed some work on the prose and overly technical language. I'd like to get it to FAC again but these are problems that need to be resolve outside of FAC. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:45, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:45, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Watchlisting, will work on prose as I find time ... @Gog the Mild, Iridescent, Femkemilene, ComplexRational, Fowler&fowler, MONGO, and Ceranthor: prose help appreciated! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:50, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

AhmadLX

Coming here because of talk page message. I'm not so good in grammar, especially with the use of (the?;)) definite article and commas, and often need others to fix them for me. So I will point some general strategies to make prose easy flowing, but cannot work on the prose myself or suggest specific changes to certain passages/sentence.
I agree with the observation regarding citation bundling. It will greatly assist you in rephrasing sentences. I've seen a few other editors adding citations to every bit and that often leads to closely following the sources' formulations, sometimes bordering CLOP.
While I see the point, the argument raised at User talk:Iridescent#New message from Jo-Jo Eumerus against bundling is fairly compelling. I don't think I'll change the citation format. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:22, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the message Jo. Adding all citations to the end of a paragraph is certainly a bad practice. But that is not what I meant. An example may better illustrate: The existence of a volcano at Huaynaputina was not recognized before the 1600 eruption,[4][74] with no known eruptions of Huaynaputina[75] other than fumarolic activity.[73] Both [73] and [75] support the claim of the latter half of the sentence (although [73] talks about a 5700 PB eruption, here we are talking about historical period). You can easily move [75] to the end: The existence of a volcano at Huaynaputina was not recognized before the 1600 eruption,[4][74] with no known eruptions of Huaynaputina other than fumarolic activity.[73][75] [75] doesn't seem to talk about fumarorlic activity in this volcano, but that is fine IMO (that's what I do when portions of a sentence are supported by different sources). Anyway, citation bundling was just suggestion. If you keep them as they are, I got no problem.

Ah, you mean deleting superfluous citations. That would work, but it's a hell amount of work to check every one. I think perhaps doing that as I come across duplicate references or on sentences with far too many citations; would this work AhmadLX? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:09, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In this article, it seems, sources are being closely followed. It seems like one sentence is read from a source and is added. Then some other bit is read from another source and is added, and so on. This fragmentary addition makes processing and simplifying technical information almost impossible (due to shorter additions). My suggestion would be—feel free to disregard if you don't like it—to read all sources you have for a certain paragraph and then re-write from your own memory. This way you will be free to tune the language and jargon as much as necessary. I Will add a few examples for this later.AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 15:57, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I think that is a good suggestion. I'll see to it over the next few days. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:22, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Took it towards the Name and Geography sections, to begin with. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 19:43, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Now also the Geology section. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:25, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Now also Eruption history, until long-term climate effects. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 19:17, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

And other sections. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 19:28, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Jo. Geology sections seems better flowing now.

Gern geschehen. To be honest the eruption history section exhausted me a little. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 20:04, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Can you state explicity that Cordillera de la Costa lies west of the Andes? Volcanic activity in that zone has moved eastward since the Jurassic. Remnants of the older volcanism persist in the Cordillera de la Costa[13] but the present-day volcanic arc lies in the Andes, where it is defined by stratovolcanoes.[19] maybe change it to something like Volcanic activity in that zone has moved eastward since the Jurassic; although remnants of the older volcanism persist in the Cordillera de la Costa to the west,[13] the present-day volcanic arc lies in the Andes, where it consists of stratovolcanoes.[19]?
I added "coastal", would that be clear enough? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 20:04, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, thanks.

Maybe explain briefly, inside brackets or in footnotes, what "Yura group" and "Barroso Group" are?
Also "Matalaque", "Capillune", "Llallahui" and "Sencca" formations. I think these can be best explained in a short footnote.
Wrote a general explainer in-text. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 20:04, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The emplacement of the Capillune Formation continued into the earliest Pliocene; subsequently the Plio-Pleistocene Barroso Group was deposited, which includes the composite volcano that hosts Huaynaputina[33] but also ignimbrites that appear to come from calderas. Does this mean that ignimbrites were deposited in addition to the Boroso Group or does it mean that these ignimbrites are part of the Boroso group? If the latter, then a period after "was deposited", "It" instead of "which" and ""as well as" instead of "but also": ... Barroso Group was deposited. It includes the composite volcano that hosts Huaynaputina[33] as well as ignimbrites ... If the former, then a comma after "... that hosts Huaynaputina".
The latter, so done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 20:04, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"The vents of Huaynaputina trend from the north-northwest to the south-southeast, and encompass the neighbouring volcanoes Ubinas and Ticsani." If they encompass other volcanoes too, how are they "vents of Huaynaputina"?
Corrected this. They are separate volcanoes, but their vents form lineaments. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 20:04, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"Ubinas is a typical stratovolcano while Ticsani has a similar structure as Huaynaputina." This would suggest that Huaynaputina is not a stratovolcano, but the lead and Structure sections say it is. Or is Huaynaputina an "atypical stratovolcano"?
Yes, Huaynaputina is an unimpressive set of small cones in a depression. That's not what people - even lay people - think of when they hear "stratovolcano". Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 20:04, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"The trend also constitutes a volcanic field located behind the major volcanic arc, associated with faults at the margin of the Río Tambo graben[44] and regional strike-slip faults." Can this be simplified?
Hard to do; I've written a minor clarification. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 20:04, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"Dacite" doesn't seem to be linked.
Linked. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 20:04, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Heck, it was linked and I didn't notice that it seems. lol

"The eruption products of the 1600 eruption are dacites ..." → "The eruption products of the 1600 eruption are dacite rocks ..."
"...are dacites, which define a calc-alkaline,[49] potassium-rich suite[50] sometimes described as adakitic.[51]" Does this pertain to dacitic rocks in general or is it specific to the dacites of the 1600 eruption?
Hard to say because most research does not differentiate the volcano in general from the 1600 eruption. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 20:04, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"The 1600 rocks also contain rhyolite inclusions[50] and a rhyolite matrix.[52]" Now [50] and [52] seem to talk about more or less the same thing in different terms. Why not change it to "The 1600 rocks contain a rhyolite matrix.[50][52]" ? Or if the two descriptions differ in specifics, why not make a more generalized formulation like "The 1600 rocks are rhyolite rich.[50][52]"? (cf. points 2 and 3 above).
Oy, this one's a hard one. A matrix and inclusions are not quite the same thing - they refer to subcomponents of the volcanic rocks (similar to "wheels" and "seats" are components of a "car"), I think these two formulations would be a little misleading. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 20:04, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Phenocrysts include biotite, chalcopyrite, hornblende, ilmenite, magnetite and plagioclase;[52] amphibole, apatite and pyroxene have been reported as well.[54] Stuff from [52] is presented as fact, while that from [54] only as a "report". Is [52] more authoritative?
To some degree, as 52 goes into more detail on its methodology. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 20:04, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
" Aside from new volcanic rocks,... " → "Aside from the freshly/newly formed rocks, ...". "New" suggests that a previously unknown rock species was ejected.
Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 20:04, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"A large amount of sulfur appears to have been carried in a volatile phase associated with the magma rather than in the magma proper.[52]"

Would you please identify here the sentence(s) in the source which support this? I could not find anything on the cited page (i.e. 1) that would mean this.
In order to go further, I want to understand what exactly does this mean, as everything that follows in the paragraph depends on this. Will continue when the above sub-point is addressed.

llus-trates the classical problem of calculating the S yield with-out taking into account the presence of a coexisting S-richfluid phase Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 20:04, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I somehow missed that. Now, I very much dislike the current formulation. If I were you, I would first mention the significance of this (the papaer does that at the start of "Introduction"), then I would mention the Sulfur yield discrepancy, and only then would I add information on degassed Sulfur. The Sulfur yield is the most [or one of the most, if that matters] significant factor that determines the climatic effect of volcanic eruptions. The Sulfur yield of Huaynaputina calculated from the ice core data does not match the calculations based on magmatic composition. The discrepancy is resolved by....[from here one could add the stuff found in the first two sentences you now have in the para]

You know, upon thinking I've moved the sulfur yield discussion down to the paragraphs on the 1600 eruption. Does it improve the information content? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 19:28, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Seems good.

Is it possible to add this image from Thouret et al. in Structure sub-section? Maybe contact the authors for permission?
Not without permission, as you note. I'll park that in my "ask for permission" list. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:54, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
After the Miocene, the Pastillo volcanic complex developed in the form of half-a-kilometre-thick (0.3 mi) andesitic rocks; the ancestral composite volcano that holds Huaynaputina is part of the Pastillo volcanic complex[66] and appears to be of Miocene to Pleistocene age.[19] Change this to The ancestral composite volcano that holds Huaynaputina is part of the Pastillo volcanic complex,[66] which developed in the form of half-a-kilometre-thick (0.3 mi) andesitic rocks after the Miocene, and appears to be of Miocene to Pleistocene age.[19]
Um, I am not sure what you are asking for here. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:54, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think I've clarified it above.

Now I got it; done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 11:00, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It is likely that the development of the later Huaynaputina volcano within the composite volcano is coincidental,[33]. To me it seems that [33] is not talking about Huaynaputina volcano.
I think that Some of these young dacites haveerupted within the older edifice at Huaynaputina, butthe older edifice is the accidental host, and not ances-tral to these. says otherwise, myself. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:54, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That basically says that it is the accidental host of the "young dacites of the Ubinas volcanics". The authors differetiate b/w Huaynaputina and these young dacites. So accidental hosting thing applies to them and not Huaynaputina IMO.

As it mentions on the same page, though, the "Ubinas volcanics" include Huaynaputina. Thus Some of these young dacites haveerupted within the older edifice at Huaynaputina, butthe older edifice is the accidental host, and not ances-tral to these. ["young dacites" are the "Ubinas volcanics" which include Huynaputina] refers to the surrounding volcano, which is part of the Pastillo volcanic complex. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 11:00, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"In 1962, there were reportedly no fumaroles within the amphitheatre.[82]" Just one group found none, but the important thing is that they are there now. Unless we are discussing the history of fumaroles at the site (or are documenting every bit), I find it very trivial and insignificant. Why not just drop it?
We are discussing the history, but the thing is that there is no secondary source summarizing the history so this formulation is all what we've got. ~~
"according to the accounts of priests people..." → "according to the accounts of priests, people..."
Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:54, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The rising magma appears to have intercepted an older hydrothermal system[99] that existed as much as 3 km (1.9 mi) below the vents, parts of which were expelled during the eruption.[101] Whose parts were expelled? Hydrothermal system or vents?
The former, explained this in article. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:54, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Afterwards, collapses in the amphitheatre and within the vent enlarged both features and impeded further eruptive activity.[99] The page number is 516. Also, the source does not say that the widening of the vent impeded the eruption. It says it decreased eruption intensity. The two are not same; why should a larger fissure prevent material from coming out?
Rewritten. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:54, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"This stage was channelled by a fracture[41]..." Are we talking about the Plinian stage here or this is the one that followed Plinian?
Plinian; clarified this. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:54, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
One source, I forgot which one, gives precise timing of the start of eruption. Any reason it has not been added here?
It is already mentioned? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:54, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I can only see 19 February 1600 (maybe I missed something, as the article is long). One of the sources mentioned both date and time. Will try to find it.

"...and noises that could be heard beyond Lima..." Unless the distance b/w the volcano and the city is given, this is useless for readers unfamiliar with the geography of Peru.
That's why I am putting another distance next to that fragment, so that folks unfamiliar with the geography can work it out too. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:54, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"...and several archeological sites are preserved under them.[138]" So far the section talks about only 1 inch thick layer. Given that, it sounds strange that so thin a layer would preserve archaeological sites. [138] explicitly mentions one meter thick deposits at some places which buried the sites.
The 1cm refers to the outer distance; closer to the volcano the deposits are thicker. Clarified this. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:54, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"including in La Paz,[15] Cuzco, Camana where it was thick enough to cause palm trees to collapse, Potosi, Arica as well as in Lima..." A comma after Camana.
Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 11:00, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
chronists → chroniclers
Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 11:00, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
clandestine native religion? Was it outlawed? I think it is irrelevant to this article. Maybe just drop "clandestine".
It was still done in secret, despite Christianization. That's why it's pertinent here, the event aided in Christianization efforts. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 11:00, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"70 million tons [130]". They report mean yield per hemisphere: (south+north)/2. Total global yield should be 140 Mt. I would suppose the same applies to [197] too, although haven't checked it.
Hmm, 130 does not say that to me. 197 ... specified "global". Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 11:00, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

[130]: The eruption produced ∼70 Mt. of global average stratospheric H2SO4 loading. Now my point is that when the papers report global yield, they average it per hemisphere: (100+42)/2=∼70. That convention cannot be used here in this article for you says 100 in south, 42 in north and 70 in total (a paradox). Either specify that 70 is mean per hemisphere or change 70 to 140. Similar conversion in case of [197].

I've removed the column to resolve the issue. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 19:57, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"the fertilizing effect of the tephra..." Change link target to Biological pump.
As it stands, that article is narrowly focussed on the oceanic phenomenon and doesn't discuss tephra at all. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 11:00, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The link you currently have is even more remote as it discusses impregnation and the fusion of gametes. Biological pump article doesn't mention Tephra, but the process there is the same that you want to describe here: Carbon sequestration by oceanic organisms. The source that you have cited here, [207], refers to the process as Biological Pump and not as impregnation or gamete fusion.

I've removed the link; "fertilizing" isn't really a technical term and none of the potential link targets works. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 19:57, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Introduce Sebastián Vizcaíno and Juan de Oñate.
Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 11:00, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"Before the Huaynaputina eruption in 1591–1596, severe droughts in Anatolia caused harvest failures." This reads like the eruption occurred in 1591–1596.
Rewrote. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 11:00, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"large amounts of livestock" → large numbers?
Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 11:00, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Famine and Lineament linked only at their final appearance.
Corrected. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 11:00, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"and of the electrica potential". I think you missed an L here.
Fixed this. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 11:00, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"Between 4,000–5,000 metres (13,000–16,000 ft) in elevation mean temperatures are about 6 °C". Change mean to average here.

That's all from me. AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 01:34, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 11:00, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Z1720

I am a non-expert in volcanos, Peru, and pretty much everything in this article. I will review this as if it was an FAC. Please feel free to disregard my comments if they are not helpful.

Lede

"in a volcanic upland" What is volcanic upland?
"Andean Volcanic Belt" Should this be wikilinked?
"in numerous places." Can we be more specific, like "in x continent, y region." The next sentence has some good information to incorporate here.
Actioned these. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:22, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Name

"According to one translation" Whose translation?
Added this. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:22, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Geography

There's lots of information about the Central Volcanic Zone of the Andes, and the volcanos that exist in them. It feels off-topic and better placed in the CVF article.
True, but I think some contextual information is necessary for a FA. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:22, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"and three younger volcanic vents nested within an amphitheatre[3] that is 2.5-kilometre (1.6 mi) wide[3]" Delete the first [3] footnote
The structure section has a LOT of individual footnotes. If the information is in one source, you can use one footnote at the end of the sentence. If all of these references are necessary, then check with a more experienced FA reviewer to see if you can move them to the end of the sentence.
Did the first, but see my reply to AhmadLX's comment regarding the second. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:22, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- - Right now, the constant footnotes make the article difficult to read. At the end of the day, articles are for readers and citations after every third word is not ideal. Try to find ways to eliminate footnotes by rearranging sentences and putting material from the same citation together or eliminating a footnote if the same information is in another source. Z1720 (talk) 15:33, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    - True, but verifiability is also important and as I found out on Quelccaya Ice Cap moving the references around indeed impedes that. So I am thinking that a citation format change if anywhere cannot be done until after FAC is almost done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 19:43, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      - I skimmed Quelccaya Ice Cap, and I see what you are saying. I don't know where the balance between readability and verifying information is; that is better for more experienced reviewers. I'll leave it to your best discretion on how to present those footnotes until someone else comments. Z1720 (talk) 19:53, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Geology

"but also ignimbrites" What is ignimbrites?
Ignimbrite, linked before. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:22, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am going to pause here and continue later. Feel free to comment above. Z1720 (talk) 21:51, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Later has arrived.

Eruption history

"before the 1600 eruption,[74][3]" and "an instance of monogenetic volcanism.[68][33]" References should be in numerical order.
"These fumaroles produce white emanations" What is emanations?
Things like smoke clouds; is there a clearer synonym? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:22, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Can we call them smoke clouds? Or put "These fumaroles produce white emanations, or smoke clouds,..." Z1720 (talk) 02:01, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Wrote "gases" instead. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 19:43, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

1600 eruption

"Based on historical records, Huaynaputina's eruption commenced on 19 February 1600" Why do you need "Based on historical records"? If you need this statement, which historical records are you referring to? If not, delete.
Because non-historical reconstructions aren't usually precise down to a particular day. The source says "Historical, parochial, and anecdotalaccounts synthesized by de Silva et al. 2000) " FWIW. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:22, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
What about, "Researcher Shanaka de Silva hypothesized that Hyaynaputina's eruption commenced on 19 February 1600."
I think this would misleadingly imply that it's only their opinion. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 19:43, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Do other sources agree with this date? Z1720 (talk) 19:53, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:03, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
OK, let's leave it then. Z1720 (talk) 15:40, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"that existed as much as 3 km (1.9 mi) below the vents,[102] parts of which were expelled during the eruption.[102]" Delete the first 102 footnote.
"likely with English corsairs." Wikilink corsairs. I'm not sure which one it should go to though.
Tried with Privateer. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:22, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"ranging between 4.6 and 11 km3 (1.1 and 2.6 cu mi),[134][129]" Again, make sure the footnotes are in numerical order.
"major westerly lobe and a minor northerly lobe" What is a lobe?
A roughly circular-rectangular shape that extends away from something. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:22, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"New administrative surveys – so-called revisitas – " Why are they so-called? Wouldn't they just be called revisitas?
Yes, but revisitas doesn't mean anything in English so I am specifying this. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:22, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I would replace with "called revisitas"
Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 19:43, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"Reportedly, in November 1599 a Jesuit named Alonzo Ruiz" Delete reportedly, or describe who reported this.
"and 23[200] or 26–55 million tons[201] for the sulfur.[200]" This is an example of a place where you might be able to move the footnotes to the end of the sentence and eliminate the first [200] footnote.
Rewrote and removed it instead. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:22, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"disappeared only in the 20th century." Delete only?
I think we need to emphasize here that they survived for 4 centuries. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:22, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"Reportedly, the 1601 wine harvest was delayed in France," Again, do you need reportedly?
Culled it. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:22, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"Denmark and Norway during 1602–1603 as well" Delete "as well"
"the social structure of Ostrobothnia" Add "a province in Finland"
Finland didn't exist back then, I think. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:22, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"In 1601–1603 the eruption led to a famine[263] after crops failed in 1601 and 1602; this is considered to be the worst famine of Russian history" Don't put the wikilink in the word "this" as it creates an MOS:EASTEREGG. Instead, put "The eruption led to the Russian famine of 1601–03, considered the worst famine in Russian history..."
Rewrote this. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:22, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"The events the time of social unrest" Are you missing a word?
Yes, added it. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:22, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"and thus strength of the monsoonal moisture transport" Change to "and thus strengthen the monsoonal moisture transport"?
No, it weakens it; reworded this. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:22, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

References

Sometimes full citation of journal articles is listed in the Citations (ref 139) and other times there's an sfn template used (ref 30). Pick a citation style and standardize the references.
That's a deliberate style choice, for when I only use one page. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:22, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
My preference is to put the sources into two or three columns. I tried it out and it didn't reduce the amount of space it took up but it did make it more pleasant for me to read.
I don't know how to do this for the "source" column. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:22, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
At the top of the "Sources" section, replace {{Refbegin}} {{Refbegin|28em}}. You can play around with the "28em" parameter to find the best number. This is not a condition of my future support for the article's FAC. Z1720 (talk) 02:01, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, but that only works for the references section which has already three columns which seems OK. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 19:43, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weird, I tried adding it to this article with a preview and it worked. I do something similar in William Lyon Mackenzie if you want to look at that code. Z1720 (talk) 19:53, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ha, that worked! Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:03, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The Bibliography and Theses sections: are these incorporated into the article? If not, why not? Since FA articles are supposed to be comprehensive, they avoid listing sources that are not used in the article.
The Theses are mainly WP:EL since I don't like using them as sources. Bibliography can probably go entirely. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:22, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
My opinion is if you can't use it as a source, it should not be in the article, especially since there is a wide cross-section of sources already. With this many references, a reader will not expect the author to list every available source on the topic. Z1720 (talk) 02:01, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Removed the bibliography section, at least. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 19:43, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

General comments

I added non-breaking spaces to the text, per MOS:NBSP. Please revert if not useful.
I'll defer to SandyGeorgia regarding breaking and stuff. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:22, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Z1720 I never add NBSPs on dates. I have never thought that should be editor responsibility; if the software can’t do it, not our problem. And I have been taken to task by some editors for too much NBSPing. Use sparingly, where clearly necessary. I don’t hold editors to NBSPing on dates. Now that they are in, no need to remove them though. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:39, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
SandyGeorgia I was introduced to non-breaking spaces after a GOCE member edited my article. I never make it a condition of my support for FAC and I'll add them myself. I invite editors to revert if not helpful, and I'll try to use it sparingly. I'll also make it clear that this is not a condition of my support. Z1720 (talk) 18:33, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Good approach! I just wouldn’t spend time NBSPing dates ... now, space articles, I do. Apollo 13, Gemini 5, etc. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:35, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I hope these are helpful. Z1720 (talk) 01:48, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Seems like this did indeed help. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:22, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Responded above. Please ping me if I missed something. Z1720 (talk) 02:01, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jo-Jo Eumerus Added comments above. Z1720 (talk) 19:53, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Responding to ping: nothing to add at this time. Please message me if/when this goes to FAC so I can comment there. Z1720 (talk) 15:14, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have not yet found time for a complete re-read, but suggest removing WP:OVERLINKing to common countries ... Ireland, Italy, Poland ... no one will click on those articles from this article, and everyone knows what they are. Removing them helps keep focus on high-value links. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:27, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]