Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Cerro Panizos/archive1

Cerro Panizos[edit]

Featured article candidates/Cerro Panizos/archive1

Nominator(s): Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:12, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a not-quite shield volcano in Argentina. It is not a particularly remarkable volcano, other than the fact that it was discovered from space imagery and that it is a large volcano in the wider Altiplano-Puna volcanic complex. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:12, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

File:LandsatLook_Viewer_Cerro_Panizos_ignimbrite_shield.png: source link is dead. Nikkimaria (talk) 05:15, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Replaced link, although I don't remember which options I chose on the webpage to find the image. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 06:07, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Z1720[edit]

Non-expert prose review.

No concerns about the prose. I made minor edits to the article: feel free to revert.
In the "Sources", Mazzoni, Mario M. (1989) and Vaquer, José María; Eguia, Luciana; Carreras, Jesica (2018) have titles in all caps, which per MOS:ALLCAPS should be in sentence case.
Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 06:40, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Infobox checked and no concerns.

Lede check:

"Subduction of the Nazca Plate beneath the South American Plate" is said in the lede, but I think the article body says that the subduction is under South America, with no mention of it being a plate. Should this be more explicit in the body, maybe wikilinked in the body?
Put "South America" instead. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 06:40, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In the lede: "The formation of the APVC has been linked to the existence of a giant magmatic body in the crust of the Andes." From what I gather from the body, this magmatic body is the Altiplano-Puna Magma Body. Should this be wikilinked in the lede? And should the lede specify that the body is in the Central Andies (and not underneath the whole thing?)
Implemented. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 06:40, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Those are my comments. Please ping when the above are addressed. Z1720 (talk) 01:18, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support. My concerns have been resolved. Z1720 (talk) 15:06, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

MyCat[edit]

Panizos, Vilama, Cerro Guacha and last Uturuncu, which shows evidence of ongoing activity - which one does "which" refer to? If it's Uturuncu, then "the last of which" is better
Specified. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:00, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For some reason the coords of the highest point aren't showing for me- it's just blank next to "Coordinates"
Mm, they do show for me. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:00, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weird then- guess my viewer is just being odd MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 11:17, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Cerro Panizos[b] proper is a 5,228 metres (17,152 ft),[8] 5,360 metres (17,590 ft) or 5,494 metres (18,025 ft) high[9] lava dome in the southeastern semicircle - my lack of geology knowledge will show, but why are there three different heights here? Isn't this referring to the height of Cerro Panizos?
There is more than one elevation estimate - these mountains aren't frequently mapped and measured. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:00, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In para 1, all those references constantly interrupting sentences confuse me- I know that it's ok MoS-wise, I just prefer to keep them to the end. There are so many present here that I worry about others getting confused too
- Ditto for some others, like the parentheses in para 3 of "Geology"
That makes it more difficult to source a specific part, though. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:00, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Efn c doesn't really make sense to me- clarify with some geology knowledge perhaps?
Changed this. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:00, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
They run mostly to the east - I'd avoid using "they" since multiple objects are mentioned in the previous sentence
Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:00, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Quebrada Cienago[d], - put efn outside of comma
That makes it look like a citation, which this efn isn't. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:00, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A branch of the Inca road system passed over the volcano, which features several archeological sites - what does which refer to? The road system as a whole? The volcano?
Recast. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:00, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like a lot of the first three paras of "Geology" are about the CVZ, not specifically about the Cerro Panizos- how is Panizos relevant here?
Aye, that's contextual information as Panizos is part of the APVC and CVZ so a lot of this is pertinent. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:00, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Numerous ignimbrites were emplaced between 25 and 1 million years ago - usually when I see a date range written out like this, the smaller period goes first and the larger period second
I got the opposite impression - older date first. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:00, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The last eruptions took place 271,000 and 85,000 years ago at Uturuncu and Cerro Chascon-Runtu Jarita complex, - and the Cerro Chascon-Runtu complex...?
Fone. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:00, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Some of the sources have no translated title, like Guzmán et al and Mazzoni and others (I would add the titles myself if my Spanish was any good, but I trust you can since you cited them)
Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:00, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jo-Jo Eumerus, that's all I got- I also split the sources list into two columns so it doesn't take up as much space (feel free to revert if you oppose). Excellent work! MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 21:16, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

All good on everything, though I do have one comment on the refs. Is citing each individual part of a sentence differently a typical thing in geology articles? I ask this genuinely- in the biographies and other articles I've written, having multiple refs at the end of a sentence is just fine, and IMO makes it more readable. MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 11:19, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that's a question of article topic and more of who writes articles. I prefer this style b/c it's easier to verify (and correct) statements when you only have to check one source. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 05:57, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Makes sense then- happy to support! Also, I need a source review on an FAC nom of my own, and would appreciate one if you get any time. Thank you! MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 19:56, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]