Talk:Puyehue-Cordón Caulle/GA1

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

Reviewer: Pyrotec (talk) 21:06, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I will review. Pyrotec (talk) 21:06, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I also will review, using the structure that Pyrotec started. Awickert (talk) 22:39, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
 * [I have also been making some small changes to the article and tagging within it. Awickert (talk) 04:30, 25 July 2010 (UTC)]
 * [My comments will all be signed, to separate them from Pyrotec's. Awickert (talk) 04:58, 25 July 2010 (UTC)]
 * I've added this article to WikiProject Volcanoes/Article alerts (manually, unfortunatly). Res Mar 04:37, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Initial comments
I've had a quick read through the article. At present, I would suggest that the article is fairly close to being a GA, as it is well illustrated and fairly comprehensive in scope, but it is not yet at GA:
 * The WP:Lead appears to be need some work: its intended to both introduce the topic and summarise the main points, but its not all that easy to read.
 * Almost half of all the sections are poorly referenced, and in some only wikilinks are provided - which do not count as citations. There is also some WP:Overlinking.

I will not quick fail this article, as it has the potential to make GA provided that it is improved. I will now go through section by section in more depth, but leaving the WP:Lead (Lede) until last. Pyrotec (talk) 18:59, 22 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Lede
 * "Cinder cones, lava domes, calderas and craters can be found in the area apart from the widest variety of volcanic rocks in all the Southern Volcanic Zone,[3] for example both primitive basalts and rhyolites.": This sentence leaves me confused. What does "apart from" mean? Do you mean, "and has"? Awickert (talk) 22:39, 22 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Geography -
 * The first part consists of a single paragraph with a single citation at the end. The citation is a journal that requires a subscription, so I can't check that the article verifies any or all of the statements.
 * The beginning of the paragraph is geographic, so nothing of any controversy.
 * The statement "The fact that Puyehue volcano is named after Puyehue Lake reflects that it is better seen and more accessible from the south" is controversial and needs a citation. Since it is a fact that the volcano is named after the lake and not the lack after the volcano, provide proof of the claim.
 * This sentence is very liekly to be true but agree that it should be removed until a reliable source can back this. Dentren |  Ta lk  21:14, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I put a couple of fact tags in this section (just noting this here). Awickert (talk) 04:30, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
 * "Puyehue Volcano is a stratovolcano located on the southeastern end of Cordón Caulle just east of the main fault of the Liquiñe-Ofqui Fault Zone." Can't find the position of Puyehue in the source; seems ambiguous from the map on p. 351, but I could be missing something in my skim. Awickert (talk) 04:30, 25 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Flora -
 * Looking at the Google-translated version of ref 7: I'm not convinced that it (ref 7) verifies much of what is stated.
 * Chaura, Murtilla de Magallanes, Ratonera and Parrilla are the species mentioned in the National Parks website but since these are local spanish names the scientific names;  Gaultheria mucronata, Empetrum rubrum, Hordeum comosun and Cissus striata; were used. Dentren  |  Ta lk  21:20, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the clarification. I'll accept that the plant species are referenced by citation 7; but the tree line and the species up to the tree line are not WP:verifiable, as yet. Pyrotec (talk) 08:42, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
 * While a 1500 m tree line sounds plausible, this is not given in the cited source (about to place a fact tag so you can see right where this is). Awickert (talk) 04:43, 25 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Geologic history -
 * ✅ Pyrotec (talk) 08:44, 25 July 2010 (UTC) - Some WP:Overlinking in this section, as a whole, i.e. Pliocene, Southern Volcanic Zone and shield volcano appear twice: there may be others.
 * Fixed. Dentren  |  Ta lk  21:14, 22 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Ancestral volcanoes -
 * No references provided.
 * Also, as I mention in my fact tag, "Sierra Nevada" comes out of nowhere (can't find in refs, no mention in lede). Awickert (talk) 04:58, 25 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Volcanism during the Llanquihue glaciation -
 * Ref 3 is quite a good paper; but its the only citation in this subsection and I'm not sure that it provides verification for very much of this subsection.

.... to be continued. Pyrotec (talk) 19:50, 22 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Recent eruptive history -
 * Only the table has a citation.
 * The first section is uncited: I suggest that, if appropriate, you use ref 1 as a citation. If ref 1 is not appropriate, then you aught to provide the necessary citation(s).
 * Similar comments apply to the 1921–1922, 1929 and 1934 eruptions subsection'''. Pyrotec (talk) 08:37, 25 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Activity after 1960 -
 * I think there may be a problem with web ref 10, I can't access it. However, its a "raw" web cite, it needs at least an accessdate (see Template:Cite web).


 * Geothermal activity and exploration -
 * I assume that verification for the sentence "High temperatures and heat flow has made Cordón Caulle one of the main sites of geothermal exploration in Chile." comes from ref 5. I suggest that you add ref 5 at the end as a citation. I also think that a minor expansion of the sentence is needed. Some information, for example, is given in Section 4 of ref 5. It could be a little as: its use is currently limited to spas and swimming pools (if appropriate).


 * WP:lead -
 * Awickert has raised some points above that need to be addressed.
 * As per my comments above: : The WP:Lead appears to be need some work: its intended to both introduce the topic and summarise the main points, but its not all that easy to read.
 * In respect of providing an "introduction", I consider that it contains adequate information; however as a summary it needs a bit more detail. As a minium, I suggest that the short sentence on the 1960 Valdivia earthquake be expanded to summarise a bit more of the known eruptive history.

At this point I'm putting the review On Hold for the above points to be addressed. Pyrotec (talk) 19:57, 2 August 2010 (UTC)


 * As no progress has been made in the last 18 days, I'm closing this review. Pyrotec (talk) 16:40, 20 August 2010 (UTC)