Talk:Ollagüe/GA1

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

Reviewer: Ceranthor (talk · contribs) 15:58, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

I will be reviewing this later today.  ceran  thor 15:58, 15 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Lead
 * " Part of the Central Volcanic Zone of the Andes, its highest summit is 5,868 metres (19,252 ft) above sea level and is capped by a summit crater that opens to the south." - how can its highest summit be capped by a crater? Doesn't read right
 * "that is visible over large distances." - "over large distances" may be fine, but "from afar" makes more sense to me functionally
 * "It started developing over one million years ago," - more than, not over
 * "A fault cut into the edifice and caused two large landslides." - kind of disjointed, could flow better
 * " Later two groups of lava domes formed, the Ch'aska Urqu on the southeastern slope and the La Celosa on the northwestern. Both are formed by dacite." - these could easily be combined into one sentence
 * "Debris from the collapse spread in the form of hummocks down the western slope and into the adjacent salar, splitting it in two. " - you should clarify what a salar is for the general reader
 * I think the last three paragraphs of the lead should be combined into one larger paragraph.
 * "While there is no clear evidence of historical eruptions at Ollagüe, the volcano is considered to be potentially active and is monitored by SERNAGEOMIN" - SERNAGEOMIN... which is...?
 * I think I got these. Need another look on the "fault and landslide" section, though. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:58, 17 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Prose Throughout
 * "The name is derived from Aymara ullaña to see, to look at, to watch, wi a nominalizing suffix to indicate a place, "viewpoint".[4]" - What does "wi" mean?
 * "Ollagüe straddles the border between Chile and Bolivia, with most of the edifice lying on the Bolivian side of the border.[5] " - Remove "of the border" at the end
 * "Towns close to Ollagüe are Amincha,[6] Buenaventura,[8] Cosca, El Chaco, Ollague[6] and Santa Rosa.[9] The main road of Ollagüe runs along the western foot of the volcano.[8]" - these can be combined into one sentence
 * "On the mountain itself, which reportedly can be climbed from the eastern side,[10] lie a few mines.[9]" - any info about what the mines contain or their history?
 * "The subducted slab loses water as it sinks into the mantle, and this water and other components migrate into the mantle wedge and cause the formation of melts in the wedge.[12]" - this sentence is a bit technical, and would benefit from a little more explanation of linked terms (mantle wedge, slab, mantle...)
 * "At this latitude, 240–300 kilometres (150–190 mi) west of the CVZ[13]" - comma after this
 * "the Nazca Plate subducts steeply beneath the South America Plate in the Peru-Chile Trench.[14]" - I'd clarify which plate was oceanic and which was continental
 * "About 34 of these volcanoes are considered to be active,[16] most of the volcanoes have not received detailed scientific reconnaissance.[17]" - should be a semicolon, not a comma
 * "as a consequence crustal contamination has heavily affected the magmas that formed the volcanoes." - what's crustal contamination?
 * " The recent volcanic activity started during the Miocene. It includes major ignimbrite eruptions of dacitic to rhyolitic composition beginning from 23 million years ago, causing the formation of calderas like Galan." - I'd combine these sentences
 * "Monogenetic centres are aligned on these faults" - definitely worth explaining what monogenetic means
 * "The volcano is usually covered with snow, which together with yellow and red colours gives Ollagüe a beautiful appearance.[10] " - I'd be cautious to describe it as "beautiful" unless you use quotes
 * "on the flip side, lack of erosion also means that relatively little of its internal structure is exposed.[20]" - I'd nix the semi colon before this and make it a new sentence. I also think "on the flip side" is informal.
 * Worth it to link gullying to gully? It should also be explained briefly
 * " about 85 cubic kilometres (20 cu mi)-[2]91 cubic kilometres (22 cu mi)" - this should be replace with a convert template that uses the |to prefix.
 * "Fault scarps on the northwestern and southeastern side of the edifice also reflect faulting.[27]" - Of course, by definition they do. I'd rewrite this sentence to say that fault scarps can be seen on the NW/SE sides, or something along those lines.
 * "Tectonic extension" should be linked or explained briefly
 * "A 700 metres (2,300 ft) wide[31]" - Should be 700 metre... this needs to be fixed grammatically (and might occur elsewhere in the article)
 * "Chalcedony, clay, kaolinite and opal are found as well.[7]" - this could be incorporated into another existing sentence I think
 * "According to a report in 1894, fumes released from sulfur beds can incapacitate a man in seconds, making ascents difficult.[10]" - bit vague... at the volcano? any specific part?
 * Getting this done. History of the mines suffers from lack of sources that are clearly reliable, but I'll search around a little. Took a stab at explaining "slab" and "mantle wedge" and "oceanic" versus "continental", it probably needs sources for these explanations - would it make sense to use efn notes to explain them? Same question for "monogenetic", "tectonic extension" and "gullying". I've rewritten the "started in the Miocene" sentence. Added quotes around "beautiful". Not sure about how to work the citation for the volume if they are joined into a "to" statement. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 10:30, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Only got up to debris avalanche so far. I'll post some more comments asap.  ceran  thor 23:32, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Owing to personal time constraints, I'll have to check this tomorrow at the earliest. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 10:11, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
 * No problem. I'll post some more comments ASAP in the meantime.  ceran  thor 16:25, 16 January 2018 (UTC)


 * More Prose Comments (Composition and beyond)
 * "Blobs of basaltic andesite are found in all rocks from the volcano;[32] " - blobs is a vague word... any chance the source describes it more explicitly than as "blobs"?
 * I think the first and second paragraphs can be combined.
 * "Some of the phenocrysts are surrounded by reaction rims," - you'll have to explain what this means
 * "with a high content of potassium." - should be high potassium content
 * "Element compositions match these of other volcanoes in the CVZ." - did you mean "those"?
 * "Probably, it was in part hydrothermally altered upper crustal rock,[61] and in part Miocene age ignimbrites.[62]" - to someone unfamiliar with Geological jargon, this sentence would be incomprehensible. I think you'll have to explain some of the terminology, and potentially break it into two sentences to do so
 * "Fumarolic gases are formed primarily by SO2 and H2O, with minor contents of CO2." - how can they be "formed by" gases themselves? Made up of I think makes more sense...
 * "Lava flows from these stages have gray colours and rocky to plate-y appearance, with flow folds and some breccia." - what's a plate-y appearance?
 * Coulee is a red link
 * "thick platy flow" - before it was plate-y; which is it? Stay consistent
 * "More recently, seismic swarms as well as general earthquake activity have been observed at Ollagüe,[85] which is deemed to be a fairly substantial seismic activity.[86]" - not sure what this is trying to argue.
 * "This earthquake activity occurs in a diffuse pattern around the volcano.[85]" - When exactly?
 * "SERNAGEOMIN publishes a volcano hazard index for Ollagüe.[6] " - how often do they publish it?
 * The link to Ollague, the village, at the end of the article redirects to the volcano's page. Fix that link so it goes to the commune's article.
 * The source uses the exact word "blob" but it also says "inclusions"; that may be a better synonym. For "reaction rims", "coulee" and that overly technical sentence about contaminants I'll apply whichever solution is warranted for "monogenetic", "slab", "mantle wedge" as discussed before. I rewrote the earthquake sentence but it may not be clear enough still. As for "how often" it seems to be continuously published. I also need to fix some links to SERNAGEOMIN, will tackle this. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 11:24, 17 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Sources
 * Why does this source - "Pasley, Charles M. S. (1894-01-01). "Descriptive Notes on the Southern Plateau of Bolivia and the Sources of the River Pelaya". The Geographical Journal. 3 (2): 107. doi:10.2307/1774025." - not follow the same format as other journal articles?
 * Same with ref 31, 59, 70, and 75
 * Otherwise, sources seem reliable.
 * This source - "Hastenrath, Stefan L. (1971-01-01). "On the Pleistocene Snow-Line Depression in the Arid Regions of the South American Andes". Journal of Glaciology. 10 (59): 255–267. doi:10.3198/1971JoG10-59-255-268." - has a dead link.
 * The citation style I use is sfn for things where I am citing for multiple pages, and list-defined citations for things where there is only one pagenumber. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 11:24, 17 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Copyvio
 * Violation seems unlikely according to Earwig's tool.


 * General
 * No disambiguation links.

This should finish up my GA review.  ceran  thor 00:11, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I think I got most things done (save for looking at mining information). Some other things may merit a double check. More generally, I wonder if technical terms are better explained in prose or by dedicated footnotes; what would you think? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 11:24, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I think it's a personal preference. In the past I've tried to restrict footnotes to clarifying things that are contradicted among sources (such as elevation or other numerical values), but I've seen them used effectively to explain technical terms as well. In my experience, using a footnote can sometimes disrupt the flow of the text, but I think that's a personal feeling rather than an objective standard.
 * Also, let me know which you decide to go with, and then I'll read through once more just to double check that everything has been addressed.  ceran  thor 16:17, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Opted to go for a mixture: Rewording the "extension" part as well as the "contaminant" one but I am not certain that it works, explaining in-text the slab and mantle wedge parts (would that need additional sourcing?), some efns. I'll see if there is info on mining (and a fix for the bogus citation error). Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 17:35, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Sounds good. Give me a ping when you think you've cleared everything up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ceranthor (talk • contribs)
 * OK, I got the source added for mantle wedge. Didn't find any substantive sources on mining, either reliable or not. I get the impression that a lot of this mining was informal and that sources if they exist are not easily accessible. So this is ready for another review pass. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:39, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Made a few more changes. I think this is ready, so I'll pass it. Good work.  ceran  thor 15:21, 18 January 2018 (UTC)