Talk:Sillajhuay

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Squeamish Ossifrage (talk · contribs) 17:12, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

I'm honored to have the opportunity to be your GA reviewer for this article. First and foremost, this is generally excellent work. My searches indicate that this is a pretty broad examination of extant literature, and spotchecks don't reveal any problematic use of the source text. I do have a few quibbles that should be fairly easy to resolve before it earns the little green badge, however.

Prose

• "The volcano is also known as Alto Toroni or Sillajguay; the name means "devil's chair" in Aymara." It's not clear to me which name means "devil's chair" here.

Clarified. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 21:42, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

• You use the CVZ / NVZ / SVZ abbreviations in text without glossing them (or linking them). I see Central Volcanic Zone is linked in the image caption, but they really need to be spelled out on first use in the prose. You do spell them out and link them down in §Geology, and I suspect this is the result of an article reorganization.

Spelled them out. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 21:42, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

• "edifices": I think this is too poetic here (typically, an edifice is a building, not a natural feature).

Replaced by "volcanoes" unless there is a better word. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 21:42, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

• "...Galan and Purico complex." Perhaps "the Purico complex"?

Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 21:42, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

• "even higher heights possible" ... "although it may be an underestimate". This is a bit redundant. I might cut the first phrase. Introduce the two specifically enumerated heights, comment that the latter is more frequently cited, then introduce that some sources think they're both too low.

Reworded this a bit. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 21:42, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

• "Above 4,100 metres (13,500 ft) elevation glaciation": needs a comma after elevation.

Added. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 21:42, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

• "The volcano was the source of 30–90 metres (98–295 ft) thick lava flows that reached lengths of about 14–5 kilometres (8.7–3.1 mi).": Does this belong in the Geology section instead?

Most of that section is contextual information, so I decided to keep that info farther up. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 21:42, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

• "Farther west lie the Cerros de Quimsachata": With this as a redlink, I really have no idea what it means or what I'm supposed to take out of this statement.

Expanded a little. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 21:42, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

• "a landslide from Sillajhuay dammed the Rio Cancosa and led to the formation of a waterbody, into which the Cancosa Strata formation was emplaced.": This section struggles. I might use "body of water" rather than the somewhat nonstandard "waterbody". Also, this sentence uses the word "formation" in two different senses. Finally, I really don't think "emplaced" is what you want there.

Reworded. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 21:42, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

• Any particular reason for Inka versus Inca?

Mended. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 21:42, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

See also

• Cerro Candelaria is linked and discussed in prose, so it's not clear to me why it's here also.

Mended. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 21:42, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

References / Sources

Handling these two related sections together.

• It is not entirely clear to me when you put a source in §Sources versus citing them directly in §References. You should try to pick a standard and apply it consistently.

That's a common type of source formatting for sources where you use more than one page number vs. these were only one is used. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 21:42, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Fair enough. Some of the editors I've been working with recently make the split based on book-form sources vs. everything else. It really doesn't matter what rule you apply, as long as you have one and apply it. You do. So you're good here.

• Gardeweg and Delcorto is cited incorrectly. This is from a published conference proceeding. The website which is hosting the copy isn't a journal title or publisher or anything like that, just a host for a convenience-link copy.

Changed to "cite conference". Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 21:42, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

• The Defense Mapping Agency map should probably say "2nd" rather than "2" for its edition.

The link says only "2", however. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 21:42, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

• For Salisbury et al, you are missing a space in the title ("and40Ar/39Ar").

Space added. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 21:42, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

• For Barcaza et al Kamp, Bolch, and Olsenholler, Semantic Scholar is not a publisher, just a host/archive/access portal. This was actually published in the ASPRS 2003 Annual Conference Proceedings and needs to be cited as such.

Huh, I don't see any SemanticScholar thing. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 21:42, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

My mistake there, I got off a line in my notes and pointed you at the wrong source. The problem is with Kamp, not Barcaza.

• The same thing is true of ResearchGate for Sellés, Gardeweg, and Garibaldi (2015).

Fixed. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 21:42, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

• Sellés, Gardeweg, and Garibaldi (2018) is part of a series of technical reports; you may wish to include that under |series and |volume (Serie Geología Básica, No. 182).

Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 21:42, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Beyond GA

These are issues that are not actionable at the GA level. You don't have to address them to satisfy the GA criteria, but I know many folks like to prepare articles for an eventual push to FAC.

• In general, this could use a prose copy edit. I've highlighted the most significant issues above, but the general flow and tone of the article could use some work, especially if you're aiming for FAC.

I am probably not aiming at FAC here as the amount of information available on the volcano's geography is somewhat thin and there may be one or two SERNAGEOMIN publication out there that isn't readily accessible. If someone writes a substantial source on this in the future I might reconsider. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 21:42, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

• In the references, you use at least two different date formats (DMY and ISO).

Standardized. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 21:42, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

• Ideally, present ISBNs as properly hyphenated ISBN-13s. There are several online conversion tools to assist you in this.

Worked with one only; that one is done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 21:42, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Sometimes, I have magic ISBN powers. Gonzales-Ferran is ISBN 978-956-202-054-1. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 22:17, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

• Journals do not (typically) need their publisher listed.

I don't think there are any listed at the moment...? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 21:42, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Ah. Turns out there aren't publishers for the journal sources, but you do have a few publication locations for journals. Same thing applies. Although, again, that's really not an actionable issue at the GA level, so if you'd like to not worry about it, feel free. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 22:14, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Most of these issues should be fairly easy to resolve. I look forward to seeing an even better version of the article soon. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 17:12, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

@Squeamish Ossifrage:Thanks for the review. I'll handle this either today or tomorrow, depending on whether I can get my comments on Newberry Volcano completed. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 17:36, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

@Squeamish Ossifrage: Got these and expanded the article a little (last edit with "Expanding article"). Out of curiosity, do you know whether these fo ur URLs are reliable sources? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 21:42, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

I'll check in on the rest of the process soon, but regarding the links:

1) is just fine, published by an established organization with editorial control and even a policy for correcting errors!

2) is... probably reliable. Radio Polar doesn't seem to have a stated editorial policy. But they've been a Chilean media outlet in various forms since the 1940s, and their internet news site has been operating since 1999. I don't really have any reason to treat them as unreliable, but you should approach science reporting on their site with the same degree of caution that you'd use for any science reporting in popular media.

3) is a scan of an early 20th century periodical. This is easily an RS (other than the usual cautions due journals of the era). Treat the website hosting it as a convenience link and format the citation to Boletin de la Sociedad Ecuatoriana de Estudios Historicos Americans like you were citing it in print.

4) doesn't seem like a problem. Again, make sure you cite the map itself (the hosting website isn't the publisher here), but there looks to be adequate bibliographic information to make that citation complete. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 22:09, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

@Squeamish Ossifrage: I've opted to use only one of these sources and also rectified the remaining problems. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 07:02, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

I've made a couple of quick copy edits to improve the general prose flow in a couple areas. If you want to continue to improve this article beyond the GA standard, I do think it would benefit from a thorough copyedit by someone skilled in such tasks (although I don't see any reason why it wouldn't pass criterion 1a as it stands). There are also quite a few cleanup activities that could be done; the article has a lot of duplicate links, for example. But none of that is relevant for the GA level, so I'm happy to promote. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 15:53, 5 March 2019 (UTC)