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)[reply]
"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)[reply]
"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.
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.
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?
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?
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.
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
