Talk:Cerro Blanco (volcano)

Feedback for GA article nomination
This article has been nominated for Good Article status. As a newbie to the GA process, I did not want to initiate a formal review because I do not currently feel competent to do so, yet I wanted to help out by offering a few general observations which I hope may be of use. (Feel free to ignore anything I say as I do not bring a Wikipedian GA expertise to the topic!)

My over-riding impression of this article is that it has been written in a far too technical language. The editor(s) need to be congratulated for their enthusiasm in bringing their expertise in their subject to Wikipedia, and this article should be a valuable addition to the encyclopedia. However, whether the content is correct or not - and I am sure that it is correct - I simply found myself unable to retain understanding of the article's main points, and I never got to looking at the citations.

Please consider simplifying the article as well as using a much less technical language which will allow a non-specialist to understand the salient points. There are too many wikilinks to technical terms which the user will need to understand before the sentences make sense. I suspect this article has been written by a graduate or post-graduate geologist with a great expertise and enthusiasm for the subject, and that's fantastic. But for GA status it really needs to be written more simply, with inline citations being used to enable further information to be obtained.

If it helps, try imagining yourself as a journalist, writing a piece for the National Geographic magazine. Lots of knowledge - good communication - getting the story across - winning audiences.

In a number of places I found the style of English quite broken, and its extreme scientific complexity did not aid comprehension. e.g.
 * Cerro Blanco has been active for the last eight million years with several ignimbrites.
 * This unit is constructed on dacitic–trachyandesitic volcanites 9–7 mya old and an igneous-metamorphic granitic basement containing orthogneiss, quartz of Neoproterozoic-early Paleozoic age, containing paleozoic mafic to ultramafic volcanic inclusions.
 * Minor bimodal–mafic volcanic centres during the Pleistocene–Holocene include systems in the Pasto Ventura, Salar de Carachi Pampa and Volcán Negro Peinado areals.
 * The Cerro Blanco area is also characterized by surface features including mega ripple marks formed by gravel, among the most extreme on Earth. These are formed from aeolian processes acting on local ignimbrites, including saltation of fine grains and sand during wind.

Maybe the last sentence could be re-written something like this:
 * Some of the surface geological features found in the Cerro Blanco area are amongst the most extreme on Earth. In particular, giant ripple marks can be observed here, and have been likened to some found on Mars. Known as mega ripple marks, they were formed by wind action which blew fine particles of sand and gravel into undulating fields of ripples, each ripple being spaced widely apart from the next.

I hope this gives a useful starter for action. Parkywiki (talk) 00:57, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I've rewritten some of the problem bits you pointed out.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 06:36, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
 * That's good to hear, although I do think each paragraph still could do with considerably more simplification. (It's never nice taking factual information away, but sometimes it can be rather over-power the main thrust of an article). Keep up the good work. Regards. Parkywiki (talk) 21:44, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Additional sources
Some additional sources that could be used. Especially to settle the age and identity of the Purulla and Medano ignimbrites, some sources consider them separate and others as the same, and the dates also vary. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 10:12, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
 * This one. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 19:11, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
 * In case we want to mention that pumice fell out from the volcano. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 19:29, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
 * For discussing remotely observed appearance. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 13:48, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

It's not clear if El Viejo is part of Cerro Blanco, but if it is then it should be added. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 12:44, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Red links
May I ask why the red links were removed? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:16, 11 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I honestly thought the red links might hinder this article's appearance in the TFA (although apparently I still left some red links which did not have any counterpart in other Wikipedias). Should I restore them, though? Vida0007 (talk) 09:29, 11 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Probably good asking about this, since I don't know about the TFA redlinks either. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:04, 11 December 2022 (UTC)


 * I don't think we would want red links in the blurb, but that's easy to avoid. I don't think we have a policy on redlinks in the actual TFA. I avoid having red links in my own FAs, but that's my personal preference, not policy. Coincidentally, I was thinking of running this at TFA in January, do you have any issues with that? If so please let me know asap, thanks Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:40, 11 DecJo-Jo Eumerusember 2022 (UTC)


 * forgot to ping Jimfbleak - talk to me? 16:00, 11 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Nah, no particular objections. I see the need to avoid redlinks in the blurb (although I don't care, personally), but if it isn't policy to avoid redlinks in the article, then I'd say we ought to restore them. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:22, 11 December 2022 (UTC)
 * @Jo-Jo Eumerus I'll leave that to you, probably schedule for midmonth Jimfbleak - talk to me? 17:04, 11 December 2022 (UTC)
 * @: I see. Glad that you also want to run this article at TFA for next month. And thank you for the clarification regarding redlinks as well. @: feel free to restore the redlinks, and I would like to apologise for the confusion that this caused. Vida0007 (talk) 20:51, 11 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:59, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

Language
The use of English (Commonwealth or US) is not consistent - 'centimetres/metres/kilometres', 'centre(d)', 'vapour', 'coloured' vs 'gray', 'archeological', 'outside of', 'sulfide' for example. As the Commonwealth English is dominant, I'll edit for that. Maybe a banner here on the talk page saying which version is used would be helpful? Stronach (talk) 09:39, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Excellent article, by the way - very interesting indeed. Thanks to all involved. Stronach (talk) 09:43, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
 * That's mostly b/c English is my second language. It's supposed to be Commonwealth English. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 13:50, 22 January 2023 (UTC)