Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Laguna del Maule (volcano)/archive2

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 17 December 2020 [1].

Laguna del Maule (volcano)

[edit]
Nominator(s): Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 20:11, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This article is about a volcanic system in Chile, which consists of several calderas, lava flows and lava domes around Laguna del Maule lake in the Andes. This volcanic system has had a number of eruptions during the last 10,000 years and satellite observations have shown that the volcano is deforming, presumably due the entry of new magma into the volcanic system, raising worries that a large eruption may be imminent.

This was already at FAC a few weeks ago and was archived due to lack of input. I got some (not much...) advice at a peer review that I actioned and I'd like to repropose that this article become a featured article. Also pinging the folks from the PR and the previous FAC: @HJ Mitchell, Mike Christie, Gog the Mild, Buidhe, SandyGeorgia, CPA-5, Fowler&fowler, Iridescent, Factotem, Beyond My Ken, DoctorSpeed, WereSpielChequers, MONGO, FunkMonk, Ian Rose, Nikkimaria, and Spicy: @Aza24, Lee Vilenski, Jonesey95, and Ceranthor: Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 20:11, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Image review—pass

[edit]

Images are freely licensed. (t · c) buidhe 20:16, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

[edit]

Spotchecks not done.

Hi Nikkimaria, is that a pass on the sources? Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:29, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:39, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from Hog Farm

[edit]

Non-expert comments here. Hog Farm Bacon 20:20, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That's all that I was able to turn up. Hog Farm Bacon 20:51, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Hog Farm: Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:35, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Harry

[edit]

This is very well-written and I'm not finding a lot to criticise. Just a few things, mostly for the sake of thoroughness:

  • You have a couple of "however"s, which are sometimes frowned upon at FAC. Both are used mid-sentence without the necessary commas, but I would replace both with an "although" earlier in the sentence.
    I've just cut one mention and replaced the other. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:54, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Use of ", with" to join two parts of a sentence is discouraged in professional writing. The example that caught my eye was did not affect the volcanic field, with the rate of uplift remaining unchange.
    Replaced most of them with split sentences or semicolons, but I couldn't come up with a good replacement for the single instance that is still there. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:54, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • an inflation of a sill Can we have a layman's explanation of "sill" so the reader doesn't have to click the link?
    Sure, added one. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:54, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • long term magma supply rate "long term" is a compound adjective and needs a hyphen
    Added. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:54, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • beneath the volcanic field that is 5.2 kilometres (3.2 mi) deep The sill is 5.2 km from top to bottom, or it's 5.2 km below the surface/mountain top?
    The latter. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:54, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Any idea what the timescale might be on a future eruption? I know precision is impossible but are we talking about tomorrow, months to years, or potentially centuries?
    I don't think we know. That SERNAGEOMIN declared a yellow alert a few years ago probably reflects the possibility that it might be in "months", but currently it's at green level. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:54, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

All in all, easily FA material. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 13:19, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support. More than happy now that my minor quibbles have been addressed. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:03, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator comment

[edit]

This has now been open for five weeks and has only gained two supports. I shall add it to Urgents and see if it attracts some further reviews before it times out. Gog the Mild (talk) 10:53, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Gog the Mild:I'll ping the participants of the previous FAC again and the two WikiProjects to see if anything can be done. I don't like that this is going to fail for the second time due to lack of input. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 11:05, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Seems to me it has three supports? FunkMonk (talk) 11:06, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Quite right. Sorry Funk. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:10, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Gog, you can consider me a Support as well, although I am careful to note when I was considerably involved pre-FAC. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:42, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Gog the Mild: Is a notification at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Geology and User talk:Jo-Jo Eumerus acceptable? They are perhaps more trafficked but a little remote from the topic. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 14:43, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Jo-Jo, that is entirely up to you. With SandyGeorgia supporting, I am thinking that the nomination could do with one more thorough review. Obviously, more wouldn't hurt. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:03, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps Spicy would take it on, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:20, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Put these two notifications out. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:45, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Per comments at last FAC. Will run through ASAP to fix minor quibbles. Nice work. ceranthor 19:27, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]


Support by Lee Vilenski

[edit]

Keeping this reasonably short, as I'm pressed for time:

Hi Lee Vilenski, is this one going to be a support, an oppose, or a sitting on the fence? Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:13, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies. Been all over the place moving house. Fine to support. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 11:55, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from SnowFire

[edit]

Mostly looks good to me. As per one of Jo-Jo's other FACs on an Andes volcano, I ran this article past a geologist friend of mine, who mostly approved of the article. The one part he called out was this, one of the sentences right in the lede:

Many of the volcanic centres in the Laguna del Maule volcanic field formed during postglacial times, after glaciers had retreated from the area.

With postglacial a link to the Holocene era. This is either misleading or else a strong claim that is probably wrong. The Holocene is a flicker in geological time: just ~11,000 years or so. This field has allegedly been active for 1.5 million years. There's no reason given in the article to think that there was some strange uptick in volcanic activity in the past 10k years (although such activity is probably more detectable), so "many" implies a misleading conclusion here (akin to "Many Americans live in Springfield, Ohio" - maybe, but not in comparison to the whole). I'll just quote his comment rather than attempt to paraphrase it myself:

As the Pleistocene fluctuated between interglacial and glacial periods, there would have been mountain glaciers retreating and advancing over that area. There might be more volcanic activity during interglacials (e.g. if you don't have the mass of a glacier on top, there is less pressure weighing down on a magma chamber), but sub-glacial volcanism is a thing. There is no particular reason to think the Holocene interglacial would see more volcanic activity than any other interglacial in the past 1.5 million years - although the more recent volcanic activity (even the ones that had no eyewitnesses) will be easier to spot the traces of.

Anyway, if this statement really is saying there was an uptick of activity in the Holocene, it should say so explicitly in the main body of the article with a reference. If that's not what this statement was intended to say, then it should be rephrased and maybe moved to the next paragraph. Maybe something like this, in the second paragraph?

About 130 volcanic vents belong to the field. The field's volcanic activity began 1.5 million years ago during the Pleistocene, colloquially known as the Ice Age; such activity has continued into the postglacial Holocene era after glaciers retreated from the area.

Would something like that that work? SnowFire (talk) 00:55, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@SnowFire:One little problem with that formulation is that in the context of Laguna del Maule "postglacial" begins 23,000 years ago per the sources, which is earlier than the official start of the Holocene ... but then the current article text has the same issue. I've implanted a rewrite along these lines; how does it look? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:08, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That looks fine, but would it be possible to remove / shorten / clarify the earlier line, then? The "Many of the volcanic centres in the Laguna del Maule volcanic field formed during postglacial times, after glaciers had retreated from the area." one, which hopefully should be explained by your recent edit? (Unless we're misinterpreting "volcanic centres" here...) SnowFire (talk) 19:09, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@SnowFire: Um ... what needs clarification? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 20:09, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The issue that I raised above? I don't know what to say that wouldn't be repeating myself. Is it really true that "many" of the volcanoes are from the past 22,000 years? Why, if so? The argument is that this is unlikely - that volcanic activity should be mostly constant over 1.5 million years, so it's not really true that any substantial portion of it is from the last 1%. SnowFire (talk) 22:33, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, "many" volcanoes in the area are post-glacial. Based on the maps I'd say about half. It's definitively not true that volcanic activity is steady over 1.5 million years - Kilauea and Mauna Loa didn't exist back then at all and Mount Etna was a sporadically active volcanic field that long ago, to pick two very well known examples - and I don't remember sources discussing preservation bias. So I think we need to take these assertions at face value. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 11:33, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I don't doubt that if you look at a map, lots of the volcanoes on the surface are "recent". So if the sentence is clarified to say exactly that, then fine. The assertion is that there's surely a bunch of sub-glacial volcanoes and eruptions from ages ago that are just layers beneath the surface now. A 1,500,000 year old volcanic field is not going to have "about half" of its volcanoes only form in the last 10,000-20,000 years.
The comparison to the Hawaiian volcanoes is not quite relevant here if I interpret your comment correctly - the idea is that once volcanic activity starts, it should be constant-ish without an intervening event / reason for the change. Those are younger volcanoes, absolutely, but once they got going they've had a roughly constant amount of activity. In other words, if somebody claimed that half of Kilauea's activity came in the past 2,000 years despite being active for 250,000 years, that's a very suspicious claim that requires a lot of evidence. If activity at Laguna del Maule started 1.5 million years ago, it's a very strong (and interesting!) claim if volcanic activity has actually sharply increased recently, and merits direct sourcing and probably talking about in the body of the article! If it's just talking about stuff visible from the surface, it should say that. SnowFire (talk) 04:47, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The issue is twofold. One, there isn't any source discussing uncounted pre-glacial volcanic vents so we can't assume that there were a lot of them. The second problem is that it's not true that once volcanic activity starts it stays steady - as this article discusses in the context of Mount Etna the last 15,000 years have seen a magma production rate about 10 times larger than the average of the last 330,000 years. Kilauea's activity has also increased over time. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:08, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(de-indent) I should have been more clear - I meant "constant" in the sense of "slow changes", so yeah, Kilauea increasing in activity is known, but it's a slow-and-steady increase, not a sudden spike, at least in geological time. And the claim here (possibly unintentional, but if so, then the wording should just be updated?) is of a massive, unprecedented spike, so 2x or 3x activity is still "constant" compared to what would be required for half the activity to have been in the Holocene to be true. Fine, let's say hypothetically that Laguna del Maule's activity is 10x normal "recently" (if this is really true, it should be directly cited), similar to Mount Etna. Because the Holocene is still so short, 10x normal activity in the last 1% of its lifespan means that ~9% of the total volcanic activity happened in that last period. Which is still far less than half. Volcanic activity would have to be 100x the usual rate lately for half the volcanoes to be so recent. Again, maybe this is actually true, but then the "Eruptive history" section should say so - "Eruptions occur about every 1,000 years during the Holocene but once every 100,000 years earlier" or the like, with source.

Anyway, I am going to oppose on accuracy concerns for the moment - something doesn't add up here. Like I said, I'm willing to believe that what you say above is true, but in that case the article is incomplete and needs to discuss this recent uptick in activity. Alternatively, it is not really accurate that there was a massive surge of activity recently, and then that lede statement should be rephrased. SnowFire (talk) 17:09, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@SnowFire:Well, that activity has increased is actually discussed in-text This rhyolitic flare-up is unprecedented the history of the volcanic field,[91] and it is the largest such event in the southern Andes.[26] in the paragraphs discussing post-glacial activity. I've put "several" instead of "many" in the lead but I am only tepidly convinced that it's an improvement. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:56, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry about the delayed response. Struck the oppose - but I don't want you to write something you disagree with or are unhappy about. The reason that I'm thrown is that you seem to be self-contradicting a bit by indicating there really was such a massive surge. That claim seems to be something stronger / more interesting than your quote - I couldn't get access to that journal article that references your quote above, but I did read https://www.geosociety.org/gsatoday/archive/24/12/article/i1052-5173-24-12-4.htm , and I see what you were saying about the concentration of events in recent eras as well as the recent uptick. Just not sold that this means quite what your sentence implied, and the article (to me at least) didn't seem to explicitly make a claim like was made in the lede anyway. While "several" is better, I'd suggest (optionally, of course) that you just describe the uptick in activity in the Holocene to the amount that sources agree it occurs. This is an interesting fact! You can also be explicit rather than implied here, so that you don't accidentally sound like you're implying a "gigantic" uptick rather than a "large" uptick. SnowFire (talk) 11:27, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@SnowFire: Hmm. I admit that even after re-reading your reply here I am not sure what you are recommending. Should I say in the lead that the rhyolitic flare-up occurred, or rewrite the sentence that mentions it? "Flare up" might be a misleading word. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 13:01, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Jo-Jo Eumerus: Sorry about the delayed response - I think that the material in the sentence in the lede is already accurately covered in the second paragraph now, so doesn't need to be there at all and can be safely removed. If you want to, adding a sentence on the increase in activity in the Holocene to the lede (doesn't have to be in the exact same spot) gets across the sense of what it is you're trying to say. Maybe something like remove that first paragraph sentence, and adjust the second paragraph:
Postglacial volcanic activity has included eruptions with simultaneous explosive and effusive components, as well as eruptions with only one component. In the postglacial era, volcanic activity has increased at Laguna del Maule, with the volcanic field rapidly inflating during the Holocene.
Would that work? Feel free to adjust however you like or to decline entirely, I'm just throwing out a suggestion. SnowFire (talk) 01:10, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
OK, that seems good. Cut the sentence from the first paragraph and added the proposed text to the second. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:27, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good to me, thanks! Support. SnowFire (talk) 20:18, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport by CPA-5

[edit]

Okay, I'm back with the volcanoes.

Lead

  • Laguna del Maule is a volcanic field in the Andes The article uses volcano instead of a volcanic field?
    In this context, they are equivalent: A volcanic field is a type of volcano and Laguna del Maule is a volcanic field. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 20:09, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The bulk of the volcanic field is in the Talca province --> "The bulk of the volcanic field is in the Talca Province" The province is a proper name.
  • The volcanic field covers an area of 500 square kilometres (190 sq mi) and features at least 130 vents Link for vents?
  • which is also the source of the Maule river --> "which is also the source of the Maule River"
  • About 130 volcanic vents belong to the field I assume here is the link of the vents?
    Deleted as it was mentioned before already. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 20:09, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • eruptions in the volcanic field took place 2,500 ± 700, 1,400 ± 600 and 800 ± 600 years ago Link the first "±" since I always forgot what it means.

Geography and structure

  • belongs to the Maule Region,[1] of Talca province in the Andes mountain --> "belongs to the Maule Region,[1] of Talca Province in the Andes mountain"
  • and the city of Malargüe is located about 140 kilometres (87 mi) east from the volcanic field Per MOS:UNITNAMES All the km who are written fully should be abbreviated.
  • In which English style is this article written? I see northwest which is mostly American but I also see the word centre and km is also written with a "-re".
    BrEng, but since I am ESL some non-BrEng may have slipped in which needs to be corrected. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 20:09, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ah I see me either. It's hard to keep track of one style of English. But since I'm an Anglophile I kinda know and see the differences easily.
  • field covers a surface area of 500 square kilometres (190 sq mi) This is the second square kilometres thus chang it with km². This also applies to all the other square kilometres except the first one used in the lead and body.
  • The volcanic field lies at an average height of 2,400 metres (7,900 ft) Per MOS:UNITNAMES short units should be written fully only a few times I assume few means not more than three times. Since this is the fourth "metres" it should be "m". All the metres after this should be "m".
  • with a volume of about 0.82 cubic kilometres (0.20 cu mi) This is the second time "cubic kilometres" is used change it into "km³" This also applies to all the km³ after this sentence.
    Given that this is a more exotic unit than the 1D and 2D versions, I am actually inclined to spell it out throughout. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 20:09, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just saying what MOS:UNITNAMES if you think it should be included at the exceptions then please you always can request it on the talk page but I stay with MOS.
  • I'm sadly not expert in copyright I sadly cannot help you after so many years being active on Wikipedia I still haven't learnt how copyright on Wikipedia works. If I ever have the motivation then surly would learn but now I'll wait for that moment.

That's anything for now. Will continue later on. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 14:58, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@CPA-5:Actioned, unless stated otherwise. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 20:09, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Local

  • later dacitic dykes that were emplaced 3.6–2.0 million years ago Remove the nought since it's unnecessary.
    The 0? I think it needs to stay as it's a significant figure Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 19:50, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Faults such as the Troncoso Fault lie within the southwestern sector American Southwestern?
  • Northeast of Laguna del Maule is the Cerro Campanario Same as above?
  • high and was active 150,000–160,000 years ago --> "high and was active 160,000–150,000 years ago"?
  • Also west of Laguna del Maule lies the Tatara-San Pedro and Rio Colorado caldera "Also" doesn't sound encyclopedic.
    I've recast that sentence. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 19:50, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Composition of erupted rocks

Magma genesis

Obsidian

  • In pre-Columbian times Link pre-Comubian time.
  • important source of obsidian for the region Is there a link for obsidian?
  • Finds have been made from the Pacific Ocean to Mendoza Unlink Pacific Ocean since it's MOS:OVERLINK.
  • as well as at archaeological sites of Neuquén province --> "as well as at archaeological sites of Neuquén Province"
  • Obsidian has been found in the Arroyo El Pehuenche, Laguna Negra and Laguna del Maule localities No link for these locations?
    No, they are too minor to deserve their own articles. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 19:50, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That's anything for now. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 15:03, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • I have some problems with my monitor and my eyes hurt because of it so I prefer not to be online that much. Since Black Friday has passed and Cyber Monday is coming I'm not sure when I will get a new one. This year is gonna be a busy sales. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 09:10, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Jo-Jo Eumerus: Have you addressed all of CPA-5's comments? Gog the Mild (talk) 16:36, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Gog the Mild:Yes, except for the "American Southwestern?", "Same as above?" and "American wind directions?" points as I am not sure what the issue is - CPA-5? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:07, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Climate and vegetation

  • Annual precipitation reaches about 1,700 millimetres per year (67 in/year) --> "Annual precipitation reaches about 1,700 mm/year (67 in/year)"
  • during which 80 km (50 mi)-wide ice cap covered --> "during which 80 kilometre-wide (50 mi) ice cap covered" This is a compound adjective.

I'll be back later. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 12:25, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@CPA-5:Done, but I am not sure why it says "a" rather than "year" in the first. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 13:24, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Whoops didn't know that.

Eruptive history

  • extending about 13 kilometres (8.1 mi) away from it --> "extending about 13 km (8.1 mi) away from it"
  • dimensions of 12 km × 8 km (7.5 mi × 5.0 mi) Is it possible to round the nought here?
  • presumably located below the northern part of the lake.[100][72] Re-order the refs here.
  • centre became active circa 14,500 ± 1,500 years --> "centre became active c. 14,500 ± 1,500 years"
    Not sure if that is compatible with nowrap. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:31, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • 101]-2,000 years ago. Why is the citation here first?
    Somewhere a number got lost, I've recovered it. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:31, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rhyolitic unit rcd.[104][7] Re-order the refs here.

We're getting there. ;) Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 17:26, 13 December 2020 (UTC) Ah screw it let's go for a whole review.[reply]

Possible future eruptions

  • The section is huge can you split it with sub-sections?
    Added some subsections, I wonder if a rename of the head section is called for too. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:31, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I see a lot of "centimetres" written fully can you abbreviated them?
  • Measurements in 2016 indicated that the uplift rate was 25 centimetres per year (9.8 in/year) --> "Measurements in 2016 indicated that the uplift rate was 25 cm/a (9.8 in/year)"
  • 31,000,000 ± 1,000,000 cubic metres per year (1.095×109 ± 35,000,000 cubic feet per year) between 2007 and 2010. The rate of volume change increased between 2011 and 2012.[128] As of July 2016, 2,000,000 cubic metres per year (71,000,000 cubic feet per year) --> "31,000,000 ± 1,000,000 m³/a (1.095×109 ± 35,000,000 cubic feet per year) between 2007 and 2010. The rate of volume change increased between 2011 and 2012.[128] As of July 2016, 2,000,000 m³/a (71,000,000 cubic feet per year)" they are the second and third time we see "cubic metres per year".
  • the inflation is about 0.05 cubic kilometres per year (0.012 cubic miles per year) --> "the inflation is about 0.05 cubic km³/a (0.012 cubic miles per year)" Second time we see this unit around.
    This should be correct now. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:31, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • increasing the hazard of an explosive eruption.[144][108] Re-order the refs here.

Okay, I'm done here let's have another look before I finish them.

  • be of volcano-tectonic origin, while fluid flow is less important --> "be of volcano-tectonic origin, while the fluid flow is less important"
    I think that incorrectly implies that we have already defined what the "fluid flow" is. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:31, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • such as scour, in the down-valley gorge.[31][16] Re-order the refs here.
  • Laguna El Piojo on the Chilean side in the southwestern sector --> " Laguna El Piojo on the Chilean side in the south-western sector" American southwestern.
  • of rhyolite and 1.0 cubic kilometre (0.24 cu mi) of rhyodacite --> "of rhyolite and 1 cubic kilometre (0.24 cu mi) of rhyodacite" Please round the unnecessary nought.
    It should be correct now. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:31, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • magmas on average consist of 5-6% water by weight --> "magmas on average consist of 5–6% water by weight" En dash instead of hyphen here.
  • during which 80-kilometre-wide (50 mi) ice cap covered the volcano --> "during which an 80-kilometre-wide (50 mi) ice cap covered the volcano"
    It is already in this form? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:31, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • extending about 13 kilometres (8.1 mi) away from it --> "extending about 13 km (8.1 mi) away from it"

Jo-Jo Eumerus Okay that's everything now I will have a look to your replies. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 17:57, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@CPA-5: Done unless commented otherwise. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:31, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think it's ready to go. The only issue we have are the "cubic kilometres" with the MOS:UNITNAMES however it's not a big issue and I better discuss this on MOS' talk page itself rather than now rushing over or holding this back just because of this small issue. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 09:38, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Kent G. Budge

[edit]

My first time to review a FA nomination, so I won't duplicate previous checks on citations, hatnotes and so on.

  • The fourth paragraph of the "Geography and structure" section starts by describing the Quaternary fields around the lake, which flows naturally from the preceding paragraph. But then we abruptly are talking about the volcanic field as a whole, which seems like information that ought to have been in the very first paragraph. It seems a bit awkward. I'm not quite sure how it should be reorganized, though.
    Yeah, this one's a tough one. The order currently is human geography-regional geology-lake-volcanic field; would human geography-volcanic field-lake work better? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:18, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That makes sense to me. --Kent G. Budge (talk) 16:35, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
And done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:40, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If already fixed, great. --Kent G. Budge (talk) 16:35, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

These are nits. The article seems generally well-written and impressively thorough. --Kent G. Budge (talk) 04:49, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

With the changes, make it fully support. --Kent G. Budge (talk) 16:35, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Small update

[edit]

I've used some new (2020) sources to expand some parts of the article; my edits are here. Also, if folks want a geological map of the volcanic field (unfortunately just for its lacustrine part) it's here. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 13:59, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I love maps. Go for it. --Kent G. Budge (talk) 16:47, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Added, courtesy ping to Nikkimaria for the copyright review. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 21:16, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Copyright is fine, though I'd be careful about providing an alt text since that map is a bit of an accessibility concern. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:18, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That's going to be a hard thing to do given the level of detail. I've done a bit but it's not much. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:27, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Moisejp

[edit]

I don't know much about volcanoes, but the prose is very solid and the article seems at least to be comprehensive. I made number of minor edits to clean up small grammar and consistency issues. Moisejp (talk) 07:59, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Laguna_del_Maule_(volcano)/archive2&oldid=994763556"