Talk:Licancabur/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Volcan Juriques?

I've noticed that the peak located just east of Licancabur, named Volcan Juriques, does not exist on Wikipedia. I'm signing off for the moment, but when I get back (most likely sometime tomorrow if I'm not reading Dawkins' The Blind Watchmaker), I'll create it and hopefully edit it and this one to the point of meaningfulness. For the time being, I think an "improve" template is in order, as I'm going to need all the help I can get. That's all for now.

TydeNet 07:23, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Location

Corrected the location so everyone can know it is officially located in Chile and not Bolivia. Hope this helps. TydeNet 06:53, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

The highest point of Licancabur forms part of the border between Bolivia and Chile. Apparently, the crater lake is located entirely within Chilean territory. See [1] (plugin needed, SVG Viewer). This may be a reason for the confusion. Jespinos 20:49, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

"most volcanic activity"

A year date or age should be provided for this citation. 143.232.210.46 (talk) 22:49, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Licancabur. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 01:56, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Citation question

User:Jo-Jo Eumerus, can you help me out? I am puzzled by the Rudolph 1955 citation--apparently that's "via" this article. What does that mean? Note also that the Rudolph article is cited in teh bibliography as if it's one single page, 151; that can't be right. And, of course, that's the same article as this one, cited under Le Paige, with the mysterious page numbers shifted by one. That source is also the one referencing that the volcano "stands out" and I was curious about that. Drmies (talk) 02:42, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

@Drmies: Seems like when editing the page that I mixed up two JSTOR based sources - the Rudolph one which I can access through JSTOR and the Estudios Atacamenos one which I need to access another way. That second source for some reason has two different page numbering schemes depending on whether you look at it through JSTOR (http://www.jstor.org/stable/25674576?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents) or a direct way (http://www.estudios-atacamenos.ucn.cl/revista/pdf/numero06/EA6-3.pdf). The page numbers used in the citations refer to the PDF version. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:42, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Thanks! That is a nice article (and yeah, that hook about how the volcano looks would have been inappropriate: the author is waxing a bit poetic). But what a fascinating area. I want to go. Drmies (talk) 13:22, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Licancabur. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:41, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

Snow line above elevation of mountain?

The article states that the highest point is 5,916 m and the snow line is estimated at 6,190 metres. I can't access the full documentation of the snow line reference, but does it make sense that a snow line can be above the highest elevation? Linktex (talk) 15:50, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

Going by memory, yes. Sometimes snowlines are established by measuring the snowline on a mountain - and such a snow line by definition cannot be taller than the mountain in question - but other times it gets interpolated from neighbouring mountains or from climatology, and such snowlines can be higher than the top of a mountain. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:03, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

Theses?

Are these sources reliable?

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Adityavagarwal (talk · contribs) 16:21, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

I am trying a good article review. Adityavagarwal Adityavagarwal (talk) 16:21, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

There are a few errors based on the good article criteria.

  1. Is it well written?
    A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
    In the subheading, General setting, "farther south" should it be "further south" instead?
Both are correct, "farther" would be preferable if a distinction were to be made. See [2] -- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 13:47, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
Yeah, but since there was yet another further used instead of farther, so I thought it would be cohesive and similar to use further instead. However, as you pointed about distinction, I do not think I thought about that point as well. Also do feel free to amend my mistakes, as this might eliminate my mistakes. Adityavagarwal (talk) 16:46, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
  1. In the subheading, Local setting, "Among the region's active volcanoes are Putana (erupted at the end of the 19th century), Llullaillaco (1868) and Lascar (1993)[a][14] Other stratovolcanoes are Tacora, Nevados de Payachata, Isluga, Tata Sabaya, Ollague, Tocorpuri, Sairecabur and Socompa.[15] " Seems like there is a fullstop missing.
    " Nineteen kilometres (12 miles) southeast, " Instead, to maintain similarity with other occurences of length, which was seemingly in numbers instead of words, I think even this one should be in numerical instead of in words.
    Numerals are written out when at the beginning of a sentence, so this is correct as is. See WP:NUMNOTES -- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 13:47, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
    B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
  2. Is it verifiable with no original research?
    A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:
    The introductory paragraph has only any reference. Even though the information might be present in the successive references, but the paragraph and/or the lines within the paragraph as well can be referenced to those references.
Lede can be entirely free of references if none of the material is likely to be challenged, and non-controversial material referenced later is best left unreferenced when summarized in the lede. See WP:LEADCITE.-- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 13:47, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
Yeah, did not know that. I could figure out that the information in the introduction was anyways reference to later references, yet I thought if readers had to know which reference the information was from, they might have to search and all. Appreciations for making it clear. :) Adityavagarwal (talk) 16:41, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
  1. B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:
    C. It contains no original research:
    D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
  2. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
    B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
  3. Is it neutral?
    It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
  4. Is it stable?
    It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
  5. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
    A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
    B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
  6. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:
Removed a duplicate header. Thanks for looking at this, Adityavagarwal; I'll look at the issues soon. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:39, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
Yeah, also was that a quick response, which is appreciated. :) I as well fixed the redirect.Adityavagarwal (talk) 10:29, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
@Adityavagarwal and Elmidae: Took care of some of the issues pointed out; I did also change "farther" to "further" before seeing Elmidae's comment. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 14:01, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

This article seems fine for becoming a Good Article. Nice work @Jo-Jo Eumerus:. Adityavagarwal (talk) 16:50, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Um, Adityavagarwal if you did pass this review, it seems like you missed some steps. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 17:18, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
Yeah, I was sort of thinking as to why the plus sign did not appear on the article, so I as well asked to some people. You perhaps noticed it, also let me know if I missed an steps.Adityavagarwal (talk) 17:41, 10 January 2017 (UTC)


Potential source

Not sure if https://cuadernosms.cl/index.php/cms/article/download/1517/1479 is worth mentioning. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:48, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Licancabur/Archive_1&oldid=1189681329"