Wikipedia:Peer review/Uturuncu/archive1
Appearance
Toolbox |
---|
This peer review discussion has been closed. |
I've listed this article for peer review because I sort of wanted to see if it can pass a GA nomination in its current state.
Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 14:47, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
Comments by RO
[edit]- Lead
The volcano was sporadically active in the Pleistocene
- It's better to say, "The volcano was sporadically active during the Pleistocene".
- Aye, done.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:58, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
- It's better to say, "The volcano was sporadically active during the Pleistocene".
- with the youngest eruption dated at 271,000 years ago
- Don't you mean "earliest" or "oldest" eruption?
- No, it's indeed the youngest.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:58, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
- Don't you mean "earliest" or "oldest" eruption?
- Since then, Uturunku has displayed fumarolic activity. Since 1992
- Avoid the repetition of "since".
- Went with "Starting in".Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:58, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
- Avoid the repetition of "since".
- This may be a prelude to
- Better to say, "This might be a prelude to".
- Changed to "might".Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:59, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
- Better to say, "This might be a prelude to".
- Geography and geology
- The second sentence in this section needs to be broken into two or three.
- I did break it in two. First some geometrical information, then the geologic one.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 10:00, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
- Regional setting
- the current angle of 30° by 3 mya
- We would normally spell out numbers lowers than 10, but if your want it like this for consistency I think that's okay too.
- between 10–1 million years ago
- You use mya elsewhere, so why not here?
- Changed it.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 11:20, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
- You use mya elsewhere, so why not here?
- Local setting
- Uturunku is located 70 kilometres (43 mi) west of the main arc.[15]
- It might be nice to explain what the "main arc" is here, as you haven't previously.
- Expanded and added a link.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 11:20, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
- It might be nice to explain what the "main arc" is here, as you haven't previously.
- Pre-Holocene
- the morphology of the flows changes
- Either "the morphology of the flow changes" or "the morphology of the flows change".
- A rudimentary error of mine. Fixed.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 11:20, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
- Either "the morphology of the flow changes" or "the morphology of the flows change".
- the longest flow from this phase was erupted 455 ka
- Drop was.
- Recent unrest
- caused hydrothermal alteration of country rock
- Is county rock something you can link or explain?
- Linked it to our pertinent article.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 11:20, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
- Is county rock something you can link or explain?
- Some earthquake activity and seismic swarms were triggered by the 2010 Chile earthquake which may be indicative of unstable hydromagmatic systems or interactions of the magmatic system with far field earthquake waves.[17]
- The clause following which is non-restrictive, so it should be set off with commas.
- Added a comma. Is it in the right spot?Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 11:20, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
- Yes. Perfect. RO(talk) 18:33, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
- Added a comma. Is it in the right spot?Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 11:20, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
- The clause following which is non-restrictive, so it should be set off with commas.
- del Potro et al. in 2013 estimated that this body may contain 25% volume of molten dacite.
- Better as, "In 2013, del Potro et al. estimated that this body may contain 25% volume of molten dacite."
- Threats
- The first sentence is a bit too wordy. Split into two.
- Tried a split, but it's going to be difficult there.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 11:20, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
- may be
- These would be batter as "might be".
- Conclusion
This is a very nice piece overall. The writing is slightly jargon, but that would probably be hard to avoid. On that point, I suggest you make sure your paraphrasing is good, as it's easy to get too close to the source when including so much straightforward technical prose. Good job; keep up the great work! RO(talk) 21:44, 29 October 2015 (UTC)