Talk:Guallatiri

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Guallatiri/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Ganesha811 (talk · contribs) 20:28, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

Hi! I'm opening a Good Article Nomination review. Hoping to complete the review over the next couple of days. I'll be using the template below. Thanks! Ganesha811 (talk) 20:28, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

@Ganesha811:Replied. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:32, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	Issues described below have been addressed. In lead: "6,071-metre-high" should be "6071 metre high" "the volcano has erupted mostly dacite..." should be its own sentence - additionally, a rephrasing to clarify that these are minerals erupting as lava and cooling to these forms would be good - it reads a little oddly at present. Done, but I think that these names are appropriate for both magma and lava. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:32, 3 September 2019 (UTC) "Latest" instead of "last" in second paragraph of lead. add "above 5,500 metres" after "covered by an ice cap" for clarity. Incorporate information that Guallatiri is in a national park into lead In Geography: "Guallatiri is located in the Putre commune of Parinacota province in the Arica y Parinacota Region of Chile" add/replace with bolded words "... closest to the volcano. Other nearby communities are..." should be two sentences, not one. I think that thematically this works better. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:32, 3 September 2019 (UTC) Do we need the third paragraph of this section? The article isn't on volcanism in Northern Chile generally, so unless these volcanoes have some other connection with Guallatiri besides being in the same country, I think we could lose this paragraph. I think it's good contextualization. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:32, 3 September 2019 (UTC) In Geology: The first paragraph is too long and should be split for readability, perhaps at "Breadcrust" lava bombs? Speaking of which, the term "Breadcrust" should either be defined in the article linked to an article/definition, or removed what is the total volume? 40 km^3 or 86? Should be clarified. That is an inherently uncertain thing. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:32, 3 September 2019 (UTC) The whole section on measurements/volume is one long run-on sentence and should be split apart for clarity. Can remove "the" before "Stage I of activity", add "volcanic" before 'activity' "flank suggest that small volume activity" - 'small volume activity' is unclear - does this mean a small amount of activity, or activity that involved small-volume ejecta/eruptive material? Expanded on this a bit. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:32, 3 September 2019 (UTC) In Petrology: Domo Tinto lava dome is first brought up here but described later, in 'Eruptive Activity' - perhaps the order of the sections should be switched? Otherwise it is confusing to the reader, who wonders - what is Domo Tinto? Put a mention farther up. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:32, 3 September 2019 (UTC) The last two sentences of the first paragraph seem to repeat each other? Can they be combined? No, the first is about elements rather than compounds. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:32, 3 September 2019 (UTC) Add comma after "On the basis of petrology" In Eruptive activity: 'sulfur-bearing' rather than 'sulfur containing' Add 'from' after 'range' re: temperatures in first paragraph In second paragraph, "was associated" rather than "is associated" "In 1913", not just "1913" In Threats and preparedness: "keeps" rather than "does keep" Description of hazard map seems unnecessary unless we have an image to go along with it There is a linked image in the source? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:32, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	Pass. No issues.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	Pass. No issues.
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).	Pass. No issues. Mostly scientific papers or government sources.
	2c. it contains no original research.	Pass. No issues.
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.	Pass. No issues.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	It seems there may have been an eruption in 1985 - listed as unconfirmed by the Global Volcanism Program and mentioned elsewhere as well. Anything reliable we can dig up on that to add to the article? Probably not; sourcing this topic was difficult owing to the extreme sparseness of most sources. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:32, 3 September 2019 (UTC) @Jo-Jo Eumerus: Fair enough! Ganesha811 (talk) 14:26, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	Pass. No issues.
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	Pass. No issues.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	Pass. No issues. Most work done in February, no edit wars.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	Pass. No issues.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	Pass. No issues.
	7. Overall assessment.

This article passes GA review! Will do the needful now. Congrats to @Jo-Jo Eumerus: and everyone else who worked on this article. :) Ganesha811 (talk) 14:26, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

GAR

Guallatiri

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review

Result: Kept No reason given to delist Aircorn (talk) 23:09, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

I just did a major rewrite of this article to incorporate some recent (2020-2021) research findings. As it no longer resembles the old version, it should probably be re-reviewed to see if it still satisfies GA criteria. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:46, 30 June 2021 (UTC)