Talk:Quelccaya Ice Cap/Archive 1

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

Isotope names and symbols[edit]

Wikipedia:Naming_conventions#Isotopes_and_Nuclides says that isotope names are to be in oxygen-18 form, but sets no policy on symbols. I've inquired at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Isotopes; both O-18 and 18O are common on WP, but I can't make out if there is any system. In any case, for our purposes here, I think we should use the names, not the symbols, since the names will likely be easier for the non-expert to grasp. In any case, I think it is important to be clear that it is the oxygen-18 to oxygen-16 ratio that is correlated with temperature. It is a great start to the article and very interesting to me. Best wishes, Walter Siegmund (talk) 19:30, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, this along with a dozen other glaciers that have been undergoing similar studies would be very in depth. I consider this a stub and there is always room to grow. Thanks for the Isotope clarification...that is something I spent an hour trying to rewrite, since I don't like to quote verbatim and I know little about that subject matter.--MONGO 19:41, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Quelccaya Ice Cap. 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 23:53, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review[edit]

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

Reviewer: Femkemilene (talk · contribs) 08:38, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]


Will be reviewing this slowly over the next seven days. First impression is good, like all of your articles very detailed :). I might give some feedback that is not necessary to address for GA which I'll indicate as (Not GA: comment). Femke Nijsse (talk) 08:38, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Lede[edit]

Geography[edit]

  • within the Cordillera Oriental/ eastern Andes. Unclear what the slash means here, and WP:SLASH indicates that slash should be avoided. Better is probably Cordillera Oriental (eastern Andes)
    Rewritten. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:06, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • 10 kilometers. Try avoiding starting a sentence with a number. If you have to, it might be better to write the number full-out.
    Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:06, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • of which it is sometimes considered to be part of I think the first of is unneccesary
    Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:06, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • supposedly it can almost see it from the summit of Quelccaya -> be seen.
    Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:06, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • and Quelccaya together with ice bodies in New Guinea and the Rwenzori Mountains in Africa is one of the few tropical ice caps in the world, or even the only one; Not clear whether it's the only one or not. If there is disagreement in the literature, it might be better to explicitly state it. The sourcing stating that there are others are quite old, maybe defer to the most recent one?
    The problem with explicitly saying it is that the sources do just disagree with each other, they don't explicitly say "it is disputed". Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:06, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay. Femke Nijsse (talk) 15:57, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • camps -> campsites. Camp can also mean refugee camp or something in that vein.
    They are not campsites, though; they are places where researchers set out tents and the like and I don't think that should be spelled as "campsite". Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:06, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay. I can't come up with a better word then. You're linking to the campsite article. Is that still okay? Femke Nijsse (talk) 15:57, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • The cities of Cuzco and Sicuani lie 130 kilometres (81 mi) northwest and 60 kilometres (37 mi) southwest of Quelccaya, respectively. Consider grouping the references at the end of the sentence. It distracts me a bit to have them in the middle, and this is not controversial information for which precision trumps readability.
    Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:06, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Femke Nijsse (talk) 11:12, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Femkemilene:Answered some issues. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:06, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The ice cap[edit]

Geography[edit]

  • (not GA: I find this section difficult to read. Would it be possible to put some of this information in a table instead?)
    I don't think this can be table-ified to any substantial degree. I am a little unhappy with the wording of several parts of it myself and have rewritten it a bit. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:28, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Physical structures of the ice[edit]

  • with a crust of ice lying above snow. The source indicates that this was encountered once, not that this is the normal state of being. As far as I'm aware, normally what happens (glaciers/ice sheets in general, never heard of this specific one) is that the top layer is snow, then a layer of firn and only then you get ice. I think that snow can also be somewhat hard, so it might still have been snow. Am I wrong here?
    I dunno, but it sounds contentious to me so I've removed it. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:28, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't quite understand this sentence: caves associated with crevasses when they roof over. (also, maybe group the references at the end of sentence again)
    Edited; better now? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:28, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Physical-chemical traits of ice[edit]

  • I don't understand the following sentence: cold-based and thus not very erosive. What does cold-based mean and why does it imply that it's less erosive?
    Added an explanatory sentence. Without meltwater and its lubricating effect, the glacier is more likely to get frozen onto the basement and stops erosion rather than causing it. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:28, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Diatoms, insects, their bodyparts and pollen has also been found in the ice. has -> has
    Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:28, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Especially during the dry season, iron, silica and sodium accumulates. accumulates -> accumulate
    Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:28, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • As reported in 2013, 1979 and 1981: Why this order?
    To reduce the number of reference tags needed. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:28, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Femke Nijsse (talk) 15:57, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Femkemilene:Replied to additional points. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:28, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Geomorphology[edit]

  • (possibly me being stupid) with a northeast to southwest slope. Is the slope going up from northeast to southwest or going down?
    Not stupid, for some reason the source itself does not clarify what this means. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:34, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • (not GA: "South Fork" no need to put quotes around informal name, right?)
    Um, the quotes are precisely because it is an informal name. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:34, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • ignimbrites/welded tuffs: again unclear what slash means.
    It means that one source calls it this way and the other that way. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:34, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Jo-Jo Eumerus: this was added non-chronologically.


Climate[edit]

  • Maybe change (jargon) austral to Southern Hemisphere? Or leave it out completely? Unfortunately, there is no article austral we could link to.
    Linked. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 21:00, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • cold fronts/cold air inclusions: unclear slash
    Replaced. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 21:00, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Temperatures at the top of Quelccaya are assumed to be about. No assumption, but measured/inferred. (The word assumed in the source applies to next sentence)
    Mended. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 21:00, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • It took me very long to understand what (0.9 – −6.3 °C (33.6–20.7 °F)) meant with the double dash and minus sign. Please change the order of numbers so that the lowest is first.
    Resolved. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 21:00, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • One of these wet periods has been correlated to the Medieval Climate Anomaly -> Occurred during the Medieval Climate Anomaly? With MCA such a ill-defined 'event', it's difficult to find a correlation between it and something else. Are you correlating European temperatures or something else entirely? Maybe simply use the time-period, because the timing of the MCA also varies widely across sources?
    Added in the in-source date; it's the source that is drawing a connection to the MCA, doing that myself would be original research. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 21:00, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • The source says linked to. Maybe it's my deformed scientist brain, but I'd reserve the word correlate to the mathematical meaning, and would prefer associated / linked. Femke Nijsse (talk) 10:33, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Biota[edit]

  • Can the title of this section be changed into Life / plants and animals / Flora and fauna to avoid difficult word?
    Went with "vegetation and animal life". Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 21:00, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • The only human use of the area is livestock grazing but agriculture has also been reported. A bit internally inconsistent.
    That's because it's two contradicting sources. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 21:00, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • (not GA: you might want to put in some ugly 'as of year' in sentence: Tussock grasses have been recently expanding in the area to avoid the word recently)
    Removed "recently". Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 21:00, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Scientific research[edit]

(Enjoyed reading this section :))

  • Glaciers in the region have been observed since the 1970s > maybe monitered. Observe can also be done by lay-people while monitored implies scientists
    Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 21:00, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • since 1976 Quelccaya is sampled and monitored -> I think the tense is incorrect here.. and Quelccaya has been sampled since 1976.
    Changed, but now it's two "monitored". Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 21:00, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • have been monitoring Quelccaya since 1974 -> Seems to contradict previous statement. Maybe omit the word sampled from previous sentence?
    Changed this sentence a bit. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 21:00, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

natural history[edit]

  • Avoid starting sentences with numbers, especially big ones. This one: 12,400 retreat recommenced could be rephrased as Retreat recommenced in 12,400 years ago. I don't think you should omit any 'years ago', even if that were to be the standard in this specific scientific discipline.
    I've put in some extra "years ago" but I don't agree that the sentences should not start with numbers. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 21:00, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • a size not much larger than Holocene by 12,800 years ago -> than in
    Changed this. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 21:00, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Femke Nijsse (talk) 19:10, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Femkemilene:Resolved these issues. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 21:00, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Present retreat[edit]

  • with rapid deglaciation underway during the late 20th century -> Can you replace this with a more modern source stating since the late 20th century? (If you wait 3 days, the new IPCC report will be out! But there should be a lto of other sources available)
    Not sure that this is necessary; do you know any source. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 11:45, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The new report is out: https://www.ipcc.ch/srocc/home/. I don't think the sentence is relevant per se, but if you include it under a heading of 'presenst retreat', it would be weird to talk about something that is 20 years past. Femke Nijsse (talk) 07:58, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Femkemilene:Assuming that this contains all of the report, it doesn't seem like it says anything about the retreat, it just makes predictions of the future temperature. Would that be worth adding? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:34, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • at a rate that is comparable to or exceeds that of postglacial retreat rates -> 17 years of research might be able to make this sentence drop the or?
    As far as I can tell, nobody has explicitly re-reviewed this claim. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 11:45, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • since 6,000 years -> years ago
    Changed. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 11:45, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • This warming is unprecedented by the standards of the late Holocene, and future 21st century warming is expected to exceed the natural variability of the last 1,000 years. Maybe drop the last part of that sentence? The current warming is already exceeding natural variability over an even longer period (see first part of sentence).
    Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 11:45, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hydrology[edit]

  • For example, about 80% of Peru's hydropower sources are buffered by glacial meltwater. I think this sentence belongs after the first sentence (not after third one)
    Rearranged this. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 11:45, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • water which is used for both irrigation and hydropower production -> remove , water which is used
    Rewrote this a bit. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 11:45, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]


Other requirements[edit]

  • complies with relevant MoS (1b). no copyvio, pictures have licence, broad in coverage, well sources, stable, neutral. While my preference is less detailed articles, it can be argued in good faith that it is written in summary style. .

The only GA requirement I think might not be entirely met is understandably to broad audience. Could you have a look whether you could simplify or explain some more jargon. The body of the article is tailored towards a university audience I'd guess, but it's still nice to have discipline-specific terminology a bit more explained. Femke Nijsse (talk) 10:33, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Femke Nijsse (talk) 10:33, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Femkemilene:Addressed more points. I prefer to write detailed articles, myself, there are many kinds of readers and some want the details. Regarding jargon, you'll probably need to flag some of that problematic jargon; I know it so I can't readily spot the unclear bits. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 11:45, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I think I might know a bit too little about geology to be able to say what is bad jargon (3rd year Bachelor terms?) and what is okay jargon (1st year Bachelor). I'll give it a try though. Did you see I skipped geomorphology and went over it later? Femke Nijsse (talk) 17:11, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Femkemilene:Er, no, I didn't notice. I guess the problem there is that we cannot really work without jargon in that section. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:28, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by 97198 (talk) 04:52, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(
)
  • Comment: Will provide QPQ review later. If someone wants to use one of the two bird images in the article, that's OK.

Improved to Good Article status by Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk). Self-nominated at 06:40, 27 September 2019 (UTC).[reply]

Coordinates[edit]

There was an edit changing the previous coordinates to a more precise set but removing the source, the edit summary being Quite a number of other scientific articles have the coords as 13°56'S, 70°50′W, so taking the intermediate point here.. I've reverted the edit as it was unsourced but also because it seems like that, Quelccaya having an areal extent rather than simply being a spot, we probably don't want more precise coordinates. At the same time I am not sure how to assign priority in such cases; anyone? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 12:37, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Two sources[edit]

  • [1]: Not sure if the etymology also refers to Quelccaya.
  • [2]: Might be a reliable source for measurement errors.

Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 20:57, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Toponyms[edit]

This source has some toponyms for the ice features. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:00, 7 December 2023 (UTC) Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:00, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Quelccaya_Ice_Cap/Archive_1&oldid=1189360838"