Talk:Lascar (volcano)/GA3

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

Reviewer: 1.02 editor (talk · contribs) 05:33, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

I'll be reviewing the article, expect comments over the next few days. Pardon me as I'm a new reviewer. 1.02 editor (talk) 05:33, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

initial comments
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria


 * 1) Is it well written?
 * A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
 * B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
 * 1) Is it verifiable with no original research?
 * A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:
 * the article might be overrefrenced, 224 refs for an article for this size seems a bit excessive
 * I don't think it is a problem, although it'd be nice if there was a way to make the footnote salad less obstructive.
 * the article might be overrefrenced, 224 refs for an article for this size seems a bit excessive
 * I don't think it is a problem, although it'd be nice if there was a way to make the footnote salad less obstructive.


 * B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons&mdash;science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:
 * C. It contains no original research:
 * D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
 * copyvio tool shows that certain sentences are copied from source.
 * These are titles of papers and the like, which aren't an issue.
 * copyvio tool shows that certain sentences are copied from source.
 * These are titles of papers and the like, which aren't an issue.


 * 1) Is it broad in its coverage?
 * A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
 * B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
 * unsure what to put here as I'm still undecided on whether some of the content is excessive or not
 * 1) Is it neutral?
 * It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
 * 1) Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
 * A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
 * B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:

Detailed
Since this article is very big I'll go section by section, with about 2 a day

Lead

 * Lascar has been active……220,000 years ago. Sentence needs a grammar fix
 * Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 17:32, 12 February 2018 (UTC)


 * three major eruptions of lascar are known to have occured in x, x and x. The largest eruption in 1993. Are there four major eruptions?
 * Redid that sentence, since Piedras Grandes may not have been one eruption. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 17:32, 12 February 2018 (UTC)


 * was accompanied by --> caused
 * Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 17:32, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Geography and Geology

 * The word Geology appeared in two sections. Is there a reason?
 * I don't think so, but I currently don't have an alternative name for the second section. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 17:32, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
 * then maybe change the first section to Geography and move the remaining Geology to the second section
 * I had an idea and renamed the section to "Geography and geological context".


 * what is a subducting plate?
 * Is the link before to subduction sufficient? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 17:32, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
 * subduction does not or barely mentions the term subducting plate. Consider changing it to a more suitable name.-1.02 editor (talk) 05:57, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't think that can be done; there is no better name and subduction does in fact discuss plates and "subducting" is a standard English formation for "that which does undergo subduction".


 * Lascar is part of The Central volcanic plate-->can you move the mention to the first para of regional setting?
 * Sure, and done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 17:32, 12 February 2018 (UTC)


 * volcanic Centres include… can you remove the lists of volcanoes and just provide 1-2 examples?
 * I don't think so, without using a totally arbitrary criterium to decide which volcano(es) to use as example(s). I've reworded that sentence however. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 17:32, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Geology

 * that extend in an east-west direction
 * The source says roughly in E-W direction, I am not sure if it's a good thing to use it verbatim.


 * That extend on a trend... what does this mean?
 * I can't find it?


 * located in the volcano
 * I was thinking that a crater as a superficial feature is "on" a volcano, not "in" like a magma chamber.


 * what does activity moving westward have to do with 6 craters.
 * Nothing, thanks for noting this; rewrote this.


 * Why sometimes there are only five craters?
 * Because sources disagree on the number of craters; I am not sure why.


 * sector collapse red link
 * Yikes, sector collapse is such a broad topic that I can't write an article on it right now; changed the link to a piped link under a clearer text.


 * what or where is Talabre
 * Clarified.


 * three paras on lava flow- lengthy. Pls simplify
 * Not sure what should be cut out - I generally interpret "unnecessary detail" as meaning offtopic material since Wikipedia is read by both general and specialized audiences and so we cannot easily know what "on-topic" material would be considered "unnecessary detail".


 * what is a 2 pyroxene composition?
 * Added an explanatory note.


 * the entire section is too lengthy. Pls remove unnecessary details as this fails criteria 2b.
 * See above-I don't think it's so clear cut that the details are unnecessary.
 * A Similar discussion happened at WP:WPCB and the result was that Wikipedia would focous on the general topic and a bit of specifics where necessary as specialists would be using related books, hence the 'further reading' section. Maybe you might want to consider splitting the page, and have a new page titled Geology of Lascar volcano.
 * When did that discussion take place?
 * at talk:Squeeze play (bridge)
 * not sure when, but it happened on one of their article talk pages, so I'll try to dig it out
 * for example, at the gas emissions subsection, a brief summary of the section and the table would be sufficient and if there is anything significant in the section you can also put it in as per WP:SUMMARY
 * Hum. I was thinking that the "sulfate dust particles" section could be removed. It's only a small part of the section but unlike the others I cannot imagine that anyone would be interested in its content. Definitively do not recommend a split - the gas section is not long enough to merit its own article. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:12, 22 February 2018 (UTC)


 * I removed the cropped image of the crater as it is a duplicate of the uncropped version and hence unnecessary.
 * OK.

Climate and Biota

 * the volcano mostly features
 * No; there currently aren't any glaciers on Lascar.
 * Then maybe you might want to add in when the glacial period was.
 * Source does not specify, but I've added a link and a piece of timing.


 * equilibrium line is at
 * Ditto.

Eruptive history

 * A brief summary of the eruptive history in the lad would be good
 * Added one.


 * Some parts of the section is too lenghty. pls remove unimportant details
 * I agree that it's fairly long, but see above with regards to "unnecessary detail".


 * 0.08 cubic km per Millennium?
 * Is this a concern with the capitalization?
 * partly I'm unsure if units should be capitalised but could you convert it to a smaller unit such as cubic meter/year?
 * Changed the second unit to "m3/year".


 * lava flows......16 kilometers. --> sentence needs a grammar fix
 * ...I don't see a problem.
 * Might want to consider adding a was between thick and issued or remove the and between cone and reached
 * Well, there is more than one lava flow so the first change doesn't work. I'd rather keep the "and" since the flows first erupted, then reached lengths.


 * they tends to high potassium quantities --> also grammar problems
 * Seems like this was already fixed.

Monitoring and threats

 * first para- could you explain more?
 * I don't think there is much more information than this.


 * seismic activity occurs at lascar. could you explain more?
 * Not sure what information to add - do you have a specific question?
 * maybe you can explain what type of sesmic activity happens there
 * Hum, I thought the rest of the paragraph was serving this purpose...

hold
I'll be putting this article on hold, and you'll have seven days from today to address the issues with the article. 1.02 editor (talk) 00:49, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks, . I've done some changes, disagree with a couple more, and need further comments on several ones. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:30, 15 February 2018 (UTC)


 * I'll action or reply to all the comments so far tomorrow. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:42, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
 * i replied to some of the requests. I apologise for any inclarity as my phone autocorrects.
 * Sure, re-commented on some as well. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 13:43, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Actioned some. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 12:43, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Commented some more., I think the length is the only problem left resolving? Mount Edziza volcanic complex and Mount Adams (Washington) might be comparable articles in terms of level of detail. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 17:06, 18 February 2018 (UTC)


 * please ore those articles were reviewed close to 10 years ago, and the criteria has been stricter since then.
 * Actually, with the exception of the copyright criteria the rules were exactly the same back then. At the risk of sounding contrarian, but I think that "pls remove unnecessary detail" isn't clear enough to be actionable. Maybe we need a third opinion on this. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 10:05, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
 * i have requested for a second opinion. Sorry for any inconvenience/delay as this article is quite tough to review. Regarding the criteria, it remains the same, but in my opinion maybe the reviewing now is stricter? Last time they would use a template and maybe give some comments but now the article is heavily scrutinised while under review? 1.02 editor (talk) 13:25, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Second opinion from Argento Surfer
I haven't read through the article, but a rough estimate using Word shows the readable prose size is just under 8,500 words. Per WP:SIZESPLIT, 10,000 is the lower limit for considering an article to be too long. That said, the word count limit is directly connected to reading speed and the length of time required to read it. This particular article subject is denser than most and may take longer to digest than a similar sized article on a film or book.

Unless User:1.02 editor has specific ideas for where to trim, I don't think the length should prevent promotion. I would be ok with passing the article at this length. Hopefully is the type of answer you were looking for. If not, please rephrase the question and ping me - I'd be happy to take another look. I'm also willing to give the article a closer look, if either of you would like me to give a detailed opinion on what could be cut, if anything.

As an aside, the GAN reviews were much less stringent in the past. I'm not quite certain when they became more rigorous, but I believe it was around 2010-2012. Argento Surfer (talk) 16:23, 27 February 2018 (UTC)


 * I was particularly concerned with the Geology section. Hope that you can look through it. 1.02 editor (talk) 01:29, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I'll give it a look. It might be tomorrow before I can finish. Argento Surfer (talk) 14:30, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
 * After reading through the Geology section, these are my thoughts:
 * Some of the measurements and lists are kind of dry, but nothing stands out as being extraneous. I don't recommend cutting anything.
 * The small table really stands out in the midst of large paragraphs. You might consider moving it to one side and letting the text flow around it.
 * Everything in the table uses the same source. What's the point of citing each thing individually instead of citing it once in the header after the word output? Argento Surfer (talk) 21:48, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I've changed the table, but I see that in mobile mode it does not float right, and in narrower devices it shows an empty border. Anyone know how to fix these issues? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 10:34, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't. I'm awful with tables and know nothing about mobile mode. Argento Surfer (talk) 14:00, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Regarding the references, apparently it is allowable to combine refs from the same book into one and list it under 'Bibliography'. With regards to the recent changes, I'm satisfied with the current state of the article and would be passing it soon. Please do get the refs sorted out soon. 1.02 editor (talk) 00:49, 4 March 2018 (UTC)