Talk:Laguna Miscanti

Laguna Miscanti has been listed as one of the Geography and places good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Review: November 1, 2021. (Reviewed version).

Lakes Low‑importance

	Lakes portal Laguna Miscanti is within the scope of WikiProject Lakes, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of lake-related articles on Wikipedia, using the tools on the project page. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LakesWikipedia:WikiProject LakesTemplate:WikiProject LakesLakes articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Chile Low‑importance

	Chile portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Chile, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Chile on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChileWikipedia:WikiProject ChileTemplate:WikiProject ChileChile articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

The following references may be useful when improving this article in the future:

Archives

Archive 1

This page has archives. Sections older than 180 days may be automatically archived by when more than 1 section is present.

GA Review[edit]

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

Reviewer: GhostRiver (talk · contribs) 05:00, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'll look at this tomorrow when I am more awake! — Ghost River 05:00, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Good Article review progress box

Criteria: 1a. prose () 1b. MoS () 2a. ref layout () 2b. cites WP:RS () 2c. no WP:OR () 2d. no WP:CV ()

3a. broadness () 3b. focus () 4. neutral () 5. stable () 6a. free or tagged images () 6b. pics relevant ()

Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked are unassessed

Infobox and lede[edit]

No comma after "of the Antofagasta Region"
Removed. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:53, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"Miñiques volcano" → "The Miñiques volcano"
I don't think that a "the" is strictly necessary. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:53, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
To be pedantic, the "Antofagasta Region" is not mentioned in the body and is not cited
Now it is with citation. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:53, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Diacritic needed in "Laguna Miñiques"
Done? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:53, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Geography[edit]

Laguna Miñiques should be linked upon its first mention (5,000 tourists) and delinked in the following clause
It already is in the lead? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:53, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hydrography and geology[edit]

"It is a maximally" → "Laguna Miscanti is a maximally"
Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:53, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Diacritic needed for Cerro Miñiques
Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:53, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delink Laguna Miñiques in this section

Hydrology[edit]

"ranging from the Miocene to Holocene age"
Not sure that this is correct - Miocene is often a modifier to "age" rather than a proper noun. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 19:22, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Climate[edit]

"a little warmer" – can we be more precise?
No, sorry. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 19:22, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delink Holocene, linked above
Hyphen to em dash in "late Pleistocene-early Holocene wet period"
Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:53, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Biology[edit]

Comma after "Widgeonweed grows at the lakeshores"

References[edit]

The first two sources are inconsistent with the citation style used in all future refs
All online sources should have access dates, including the journal articles being linked
I don't think that journal sources get access dates even when linked. I think I got the reports, however. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 19:22, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

General comments[edit]

Image and map are properly licesned and relevant
No stability concerns in the revision history
Earwig score looks good
@GhostRiver: Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 19:22, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Jo-Jo Eumerus I have left additional comments on the sections I did not get to earlier. — Ghost River 01:33, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - @GhostRiver: I think all is done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:53, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    - I have made a few additional changes myself; things linked in the lede still need to be linked upon their first mention in the body. In any case, I am passing this article. — Ghost River 16:40, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]