Talk:Lazufre/GA1

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

Reviewer: Mertbiol (talk · contribs) 10:19, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

Hi, I have read through this very interesting article. It's well written and generally very clear. I have suggestions for improving the text (below). I have not yet checked the sources, but will do so after the nominator has had a chance to respond to my initial comments. Best wishes Mertbiol (talk) 10:19, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

Lead section

 * I suggest moving "in the central Andes" from the second sentence to the first, so that the first sentence reads "Lazufre is a Quaternary volcanic dome in the central Andes, on the border between Chile and Argentina."
 * Not done. You have just duplicated "in the central Andes" so that it now occurs in both the first and second sentences. Mertbiol (talk) 17:35, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Now solved. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 21:05, 8 July 2023 (UTC)


 * The third sentence of the first paragraph is incomplete.
 * Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:04, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
 * No. The third sentence of the first paragraph is still incomplete: "The CVZ includes a number of calderas and supervolcanoes that have"...? Mertbiol (talk) 17:35, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Now it should be done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 21:05, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

Geography and geomorphology

 * I suggest changing "lies" to "is" in the first sentence of the first paragraph.
 * I suggest adding a comma after "Owing to the sparse population density" in the third sentence of the first paragraph.
 * Please rephrase to avoid the repetition of "consists" and "consisting" in the first and second sentences of the second paragraph.
 * I suggest starting a new paragraph with "The uplifting area coincides..."
 * Please add  to the   templates giving the dimensions of the uplifting area in the fifth sentence of the second paragraph.
 * I suggest linking magma in the fifth sentence of the second paragraph.
 * Would "surveyed" be better than "visited" at the end of the final sentence of the second paragraph?
 * Done to here, but "surveyed" is a little too narrow. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:04, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

Geological context

 * I suggest starting a new paragraph with "Two major faults..."
 * I suggest moving the final two sentences of the current second paragraph (i.e. from "The volcanic rocks overlie...") so that they follow the discussion of the composition of the volcanic rocks. (After "Lastarria and Cordón del Azufre have been active for the past 600,000-300,000 years." may be a good place.)
 * Did the first, but for the second, I think it's more pertinent there. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:04, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

Climate and vegetation

 * I suggest changing "scarce" to "infrequent" at the start of the first sentence.
 * That implies "rare" which isn't meant here. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:04, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I disagree, I think that "scarce" implies rarer than "infrequent". I think it would be better to quantify the amount of precipitation, rather than relying on an adjective. Can you provide a figure for the average annual rainfall in mm? Mertbiol (talk) 17:35, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Impossible in this remote region, sorry. And to me, "scarce" can refer to quantity instead of just frequency. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 21:05, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
 * In that case, please find a way of rephrasing this, so that is clear exactly what you mean. "Scarce" is not a helpful word here. Mertbiol (talk) 21:10, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Well, I think the ambiguity of "scarce" helps here, and don't know of a better formulation besides. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 21:55, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Ambiguity is never helpful - we need clarity. Do you mean low frequency precipitation or low quantity precipitation or both? What does the source say? You don't like "infrequent" - that's fine. Find a better way of saying it. "Scarce" cannot stay. Mertbiol (talk) 22:06, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Scarce is commonly used in this context, so clearly not everybody finds it unacceptably ambiguous. Besides, you are presuming that we should be precise; without sources specifying what it means, ambiguity is the only correct word choice. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 20:10, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Please quote here EXACTLY what the source says and then we can work out how best to rephrase. It doesn't matter what other people think, I do find "scarce" unacceptably ambiguous. Mertbiol (talk) 20:27, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I've put "arid" in which is also used by the source, but the source explicitly says "scarce". Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 06:10, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

History

 * I suggest changing "The uplift occurs over an elliptical area..." to "The uplift affects an elliptical area..."
 * Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:04, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Please add "the" before "uplift" in "Between 2003 and 2008, uplift totalled..."
 * I don't think that's needed. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:04, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
 * You wrote "The uplift occurs over an elliptical area..." in the first paragraph and "the source of the uplift" in the third paragraph - you should either use the definite article every time or never use it. Mertbiol (talk) 17:35, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
 * That's because here the word is a bit more verb-related than in these other mentions. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 21:05, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
 * This doesn't make any sense. You are using "uplift" here as a noun. It's no more "verb-related" here than in the rest of this article. It needs the definite article here. Mertbiol (talk) 21:10, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
 * OK, done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 21:55, 8 July 2023 (UTC)


 * I suggest changing "Uplift was still ongoing As of 2016." to "The uplift was continuing as of 2016."
 * I suggest linking "magma conduit" to Volcanic and igneous plumbing systems.
 * Please de-link magma chamber in the final sentence of the third paragraph and link it instead in the preceding sentence.
 * Please de-link magma at the start of the fifth paragraph. If you have not followed my suggestion of linking magma in the "Geography and geomorphology" section, you will need to link it in the fourth paragraph of this section.
 * I suggest deleting "of the uplift" from " points to new magma as the cause of the uplift" in the fifth paragraph.
 * I suggest deleting "and is" from "and is caused by repeated sill-like..."
 * Please delink sill in the fifth paragraph (it is linked in the third paragraph).
 * Should "as it is not associated with a caldera" be "as it is not associated with a known caldera" or "as it is not associated with a confirmed caldera"?
 * Nah, I think the lack of evidence is quite conclusive here. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:04, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Sorry, a lack of evidence can never be conclusive. You definitely need to qualify this, especially as "the region is rarely visited." Mertbiol (talk) 17:35, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Calderas can and are detected via remote sensing, which has been done here and didn't find one. So it's still conclusive. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 21:05, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
 * But you have said elsewhere "There is no clear evidence of a caldera at Lazufre" (Geography and geomorphology section) and "It may be a volcano that will in the future develop a caldera." (lead section). Why are you being so definite here, if you are being more circumspect elsewhere in the article? Mertbiol (talk) 21:13, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Calderas that don't exist yet don't count. The source for the "no clear" statement argues there is weak evidence for the existence of a caldera, but no other source agrees. I take that as meaning, no, consensus is that there isn't a caldera. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 21:55, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
 * No consensus is not proof that something does not exist!!! You have a choice - EITHER say throughout the article that there very definitely is no caldera OR say that there no caldera has been detected (which leaves open the possibility that one might develop or be found in the future). At the moment you are saying both of these things in different parts of the article. Pick one and go with it. Mertbiol (talk) 22:06, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Well, I said "consensus that it doesn't exist" not "no consensus that it does exist"; the former is determinative. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 20:10, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
 * In that case you are breaching WP:SYNTH. There is "no consensus that it does exist" because "The source for the "no clear" statement argues there is weak evidence for the existence of a caldera". You are seeing a consensus where there is none. Please just add the word "known" to communicate the uncertainty and then we can move on. Mertbiol (talk) 20:27, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
 * OK, done, but I must say, that source is not the only one that matters. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 06:10, 10 July 2023 (UTC)


 * Please add  to the   template in the final paragraph.
 * You linked fumarolically in the "Geography and geomorphology", but it might be worth linking fumaroles in this section.
 * Done to here. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:04, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

Monitoring

 * I suggest changing "during which" to "in which" in the second sentence of the second paragraph of this subsection.
 * I suggest linking "water vapour" to water vapor in the final sentence of this subsection.
 * Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:04, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

Future

 * I suggest changing "size comparable to that of supervolcanoes" to "comparable to that of a supervolcano" or "comparable to that of many supervolcanoes".
 * Don't see the need, really. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:04, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I suggest changing the capital "C" to a lowercase "c" in "Central Andes" in the first sentence of the second paragraph.
 * No, it's a bit more specific than just "central"+"Andes". Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:04, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
 * You have written "central Andes" in the lead section (second sentence) and "Central Andes" here. You either need to be consistent or (if you are intentionally referring to different areas) clarify the difference between the two (possibly with a footnote or link). Mertbiol (talk) 17:35, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 21:05, 8 July 2023 (UTC)


 * Please change "did not erupt" to "have not erupted" in the first sentence of the second paragraph.
 * I suggest changing "The volcano is remote, thus renewed activity..." to "Since the volcano is remote, renewed activity..." at the start of the final sentence.
 * Done to here. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:04, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

Stopping here for now
That's all for now. I will check sources on my second read through. Best wishes Mertbiol (talk) 10:19, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

Pinging the nominator
Hi Could you let me know when you'll be able to respond to this review please? Mertbiol (talk) 13:56, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Oh wow. I completely missed this one. I'll action... Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:04, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Hi I have responded to your points above. Mertbiol (talk) 17:35, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
 * And actioned some. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 21:05, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Additional replies above. Mertbiol (talk) 21:10, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Further replies above. Mertbiol (talk) 22:06, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

Sources check
I have checked the following references: [6], [7] (see below) [8], [9], [10], [11], [12] (see below), [14] (see below), [16], [18] (see below), [19] (see below), [23], [24], [25] (see below), [27], [28], [29], [31], [32], [33], [34], [37], [38], [39], [41] (see below), [42], [46], [47], [48] (see below), [49], [52], [54], [56], [57], [58], [59], [60], [61], [62], [63], [65], [66] (see below) [68], [70], [71] and [76].


 * Reference [7] (Pritchard and Simons 2004 p. 2) does not appear to support "The city of Antofagasta is about 250 kilometres (160 mi) northwest of Lazufre."


 * Reference [12] (Ruch et al. 2008 p. 342) does not support "surrounded by a ring of Quaternary volcanoes" - appears to be page 341 instead.


 * Reference [14] (Perkins et al. 2016 p. 1094) does not appear to support "fed through a network of radial and circumferential lineaments" - appears to be p. 1092 (Ref. [24]) instead.


 * Reference [18] (Robidoux et al. 2020 p. 2) does not appear to support "the Nazca Plate subducts at a rate of 6 centimetres per year (2.4 in/year)"


 * Reference [19] (Henderson and Pritchard 2013 p. 1358) does not appear to support "subdivided into four segments: The Northern Volcanic Zone, the Central Volcanic Zone (CVZ), the Southern Volcanic Zone and the Austral Volcanic Zone."


 * References [25] and [66] (Henderson et al. 2012) - in the pdf from ResearchGate, the page numbers are 594 to 596 - the paper does not have pages 588 and 589.
 * Sorry, I don't see that source. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:53, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
 * This is the source: I accessed this paper via ResearchGate (as I presume you did) but the page numbers in that pdf do not match the ones that you have given. If you have accessed it from a different source please provide a doi. If you have used the same source, please correct the page numbers. Mertbiol (talk) 19:08, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Sorry, didn't see it right away. Fixed it. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 19:50, 10 July 2023 (UTC)


 * Reference [41] (Henderson and Pritchard 2013 p. 1367) does not appear to support "No uplift was observed before 1995–1997" - instead it says "Our analysis confirms no deformation between 1995 and 1997" - no comment is made on that page about uplift before 1995.


 * Reference [48] (Perkins et al. 2016 p. 1092) does not appear to support "The distribution of volcanic vents and direction of lava flows in the Lazufre region indicates that the dome began to form about 400,000 years ago" - should this be page 1094? Also I suggest "indicates that the dome began to form" is changed to "is consistent with the dome forming" - to better match the tone of the source ("indicates" is too strong).


 * Henderson, Scott T. (2012) is in the incorrect place in the alphabetical list of sources.
 * Sorry, I don't see that source. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:53, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I have moved this for you. Mertbiol (talk) 19:08, 10 July 2023 (UTC)


 * Please mark the Geosphere and Geochemistry, Geophysics, Geosystems and Geophysical Research Letters articles with.

Over to you. Mertbiol (talk) 13:18, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I think I got everything? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 19:50, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

Final verdict

 * GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):  d (copyvio and plagiarism):
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars, etc.:
 * 1) It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * 1) It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:

Promoting the article now. Mertbiol (talk) 20:25, 10 July 2023 (UTC)