Talk:Taapaca

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Taapaca. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070630155931/http://sigeo.sernageomin.cl/website/sigeo/Documentos/Productos/resumenes/BSN020005.pdf to http://sigeo.sernageomin.cl/website/sigeo/Documentos/Productos/resumenes/BSN020005.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160305020429/http://www.aymara.ucb.edu.bo/html/diccionario/castellano%20aymara/aa.html to http://www.aymara.ucb.edu.bo/html/diccionario/castellano%20aymara/aa.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 00:43, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Pre-FAC comments
-- More this weekend. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:46, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Part of Chile's segment of the Andean volcanic chain, it is part of the Central Volcanic Zone of the Andes: "part of...part of".
 * The term taapaca may also be the origin of the term tarapaca: As "tarapaca" is a red link, could we get an inline explanation of it, since without that this isn't much use -- I'm assuming it's "taapaca" that could be a name for Viracocha. And why redlink to a dab?
 * with a noted increase about 27 million years ago: "noted" doesn't seem like the best choice here. Presumably we mean the increase was substantial, rather than just notable; can we find an adjective such as "substantial" to indicate that?
 * Comparing the article with Tutupaca I see some variation in the section headings; any reason not to make them consistent? I know from your GAs that you've used the "regional"/"local" section titles elsewhere, perhaps the sections in Tutupaca would be too short.  They don't have to be consistent -- I just wanted to check to see if this was something you'd thought about.  And how about "Geography and geology" vs. "Geology and geomorphology"?  And in Tutupaca the context sections are placed lower down.
 * Honestly, I don't think I've been consistent with the "regional-local" scheme, now I use the "geography and geomorphology-geology" scheme more. The former requires more contextual material, while the latter is suited if I am writing strictly about one particular volcano. Got the other issues. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:21, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
 * OK, in that case the section headings are fine. If you're planning to bring more articles to FAC you might think about standardizing to whatever degree makes sense. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 16:50, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

Continuing:
 * Subduction of the Nazca plate is mentioned in both the regional and local setting sections. Can this be reorganized to be more concise?
 * The largest eruption in the Central Volcanic Zone occurred at Huaynaputina in 1600: should this be "largest recorded eruption"?
 * Taapaca is located on the Altiplano, more specifically on its western margin where the Western Cordillera has developed since the Oligocene. Suggest "Taapaca is located on the western margin of the Altiplano, where the Western Cordillera has developed since the Oligocene."
 * The image captioned "Taapaca rises above the town of Putre" shows Pomerape and Parinacota in the background; I assumed it was Taapaca till I looked more closely at the image file. I think it would be good to make it clear in the caption.  If the goal is just to illustrate the town, File:Putre.jpg is a better picture, at least of the town itself.
 * There seems to be a little topic overlap between the local setting and volcano sections; the local setting takes about the river valley to the west, and the volcano section talks about the valley from north round clockwise to the southwest. These are similar topics -- local geography -- so wouldn't they naturally go together?  There's also a couple of sentences about the Lluta River and Putre at the end of the section that might go with these sentences.

Pausing there for now. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 19:02, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I think that's an improvement. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:11, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
 * In the volcano section we have "The main summit is formed by a Holocene dome...Taapaca consists primarily of overlapping domes..." This is just a suggestion but might it be better to reverse these, so we talk about the general structure and then the specific summit?
 * What does "(Socapave unit)" mean?
 * sizes and shapes ranging from almost circular to ellipse shaped constructs: two points here. We give different shapes, but we don't give examples of different sizes; and could this be shortened to "from almost circular to  elliptical"?  "Elliptical" means "ellipse shaped", and "constructs" doesn't seem necessary.
 * generazed: typo for "generated"?
 * and reflects a calc-alkaline nature of magmatism: not sure what this is saying. Do you mean that the magma here is calc-alkaline in nature?  Perhaps "and reflects the calc-alkaline nature of the local [or "regional", or "of Taapaca's"] magma"?
 * The formation of the magma has been inferred to occur through the initial mixing of basaltic andesite which is the typical calc-alkaline volcanic arc basalt with basalt derived from melting of sub-crustal basalt cumulates and the subsequent interaction of the resulting mixture with rhyodacite melts derived from Proterozoic crustal material; the initial melt contributes most of the material in mafic inclusions and the rhyodacite contributes most of the dacite material. A long and complicated sentence. Can it be broken up?
 * The last paragraph of "Composition" changes tense halfway through: we have "is constructed...is important" but then "was then transported...it crystallized". I can see why the tense choices are made as they are, but it reads oddly this way.  I think the key conflict is between "undergoes" and "was transported", since those both apply to the same magma.
 * Commenting on some things, editing others:
 * The file description is wrong; Parinacota does not look like that, and Putre is close only to Taapaca. I've changed the description.
 * Transferred some river information down, but I am not sure the whole subparagraph is now in the right section.
 * Socapave unit refers to the stage in the volcano's development called the "Socapave unit", discussed farther down in the eruption history section.
 * OK; I think it needs to be clearer to the reader what is being talked about at first mention. Perhaps "...with a late Pleistocene dome (known as the Socapave unit) just west..."? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:11, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Broke up the overlong sentence, not sure what to do about the tense issue.
 * I made the last sentence present tense, which matches the previous sentence. I think that works. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 11:11, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:59, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

Continuing: That's it for a first pass. This looks pretty clean to me; I will do another prose read through once these points are all addressed, but it seems close to ready. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:00, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
 * the noticeable Azorella compacta: what is "noticeable" telling me? Is it unusual, or does this mean it is seen everywhere?
 * Is there any chance of a map or satellite image? There are several things mentioned that would be good to include on a map; the boundary of the Lauca National Park, for example, and some of the nearby geographic features such as the Lluta River and the valleys mentioned earlier.  We could also identify the Tajane unit, Socapave unit, and Putre.
 * The subsection title "Eruptive history" doesn't seem that different from the section title, "Eruptive activity". I think this is really a summary/details distinction, and a subsection heading that reflects that would probably be better.  How about "Phases" or "Details of phases"?  You could also subsection off the first two paragraphs as "Summary", though I don't think that's necessary.
 * We give two different descriptions of what part of the eruptive products Putre is built on. No doubt to someone who understands the geology the two descriptions are not contradictory, but it should clearer for a lay reader.
 * The recurrence interval of eruptions at Taapaca is about 450 years: this seems to be in conflict with the information in the eruptive history section.
 * I was surprised to see descriptions of present-day lahars at Taapaca; our article on lahars says they include pyroclastic material, so surely they must be associated with eruptions? Or are these just mudslides?
 * "is to this day" appears twice in the penultimate paragraph.
 * Lingzhi's sources script shows an inconsistency in the use of publisher locations; FAC doesn't care whether you include them or not but you should be consistent. Danyau & Toro has a location; Besom and Eisenberg do not, for example.
 * Can we have a publisher for Concha (1966)?
 * Further replies:
 * "noticeable" in the sense that the Yareta is a rather conspicuous plant.
 * OK; I'm not sure this is the best word choice but I'll think about it some more. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 18:52, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
 * The source has some maps, but none is freely licensed. There is an old map File:Txu-oclc-224571178-se19-10.jpg which is on Commons that could be cropped to Taapaca.
 * That's not that easy to read. I looked at OpenStreetMap, which does have both Taapaca and Putre, but none of the topographic data.  Maybe leave this if there's nothing better.  The Graphics Lab used to have a rather good map request workshop, but it seems to be dormant. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 18:52, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Re: Putre. It seems more like two sources which disagree as to which unit Putre is build on, and one source has a broken link the other I need to make a request for. Well, according to the now un-broken link the town spreads over several units so changed.
 * Technically speaking, the recurrence interval is for individual eruptions dated in the Holocene. The various units are not necessarily one-unit-one-eruption.
 * I think a lay reader will get confused by this. Is there a link we could use for recurrence interval?  Failing that I think a footnote explaining why it doesn't seem to map to the eruption history would be helpful. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 18:52, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Lahars can occur without active eruptions, yes; from our article on it In particular, although lahars are typically associated with the effects of volcanic activity, lahars can occur even without any current volcanic activity, as long as the conditions are right to cause the collapse and movement of mud originating from existing volcanic ash deposits.
 * OK, so long as it's technically accurate that's fine. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 18:52, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 14:54, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

One more point: -- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 18:52, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I just noticed that the doi link from Rundel & Palma is broken.
 * That doi link works for me. Regarding the recurrence interval, the problem I see is that the aforementioned is mainly my own interpretation. I wonder if saying "individual eruptions" would make it clearer that they are not the same thing as an unit. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:21, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
 * You're right; the doi link is fine. I saw the deadlink come up on the link checker; it appears to be getting confused.  Re the recurrence interval, can you explain the terms again?  I don't think I followed your unit/eruption distinction -- what concerned me was that the last eruption is dated 2,300 BP, but the recurrence comment seems to imply eruptions should be happening about every 450 years. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 23:08, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Ah, seems like I was misunderstanding the problem. I've rewritten the sentence a bit; a recurrence interval is an average number, since in most volcanoes eruptions occur at irregular times. Seems like the resting period at Taapaca has been unusually long and thus an eruption is effectively overdue. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 06:14, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Second pass: I really would like to see some kind of map or diagram to show the relationship of the various units and the geographical entities. I'll dig around on the web for sources of satellite imagery and see what I can find. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:06, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
 * starting during the Pliocene and Pleistocene: it can't have started during both.
 * The emplacement of lava domes was often accompanied by their collapse: this makes the events sound simultaneous; better to use a verb that indicates sequences -- perhaps "followed".
 * The subduction process generates fluids that are ultimately responsible for the evolution of subduction-associated magmas when they interact with the mantle wedge above the subducting plate. Any way to eliminate one of the three "subduct-" words in this sentence? And the very next sentence has three more (though I added one of them myself in a copyedit).
 * It consists primarily of overlapping lava domes, of which there are many at Taapaca, with shapes ranging from almost elliptical to circular: how about "It consists primarily of many overlapping lava domes, with shapes ranging from almost elliptical to circular."
 * You have "inferred" twice in two sentences in the "Composition" section.
 * block-and-ash flows up to 13 kilometres (8.1 mi) long and with thicknesses 20 metres (66 ft)-less than 2 metres (6 ft 7 in) thick farther away from the volcano have covered a surface of 110 square kilometres (42 sq mi): something wrong here; should it be something like "with thicknesses of 20 metres, down to less than 2 metres thick farther away..."?
 * At this time, Taapaca likely was a large stratovolcano[47] consisting of steep lava domes: I thought stratovolcanoes and lava domes were separate categories of volcano?
 * I found this site, which pointed me at the USGS Earth Explorer, which has some coverage, but it's fiddly to get to. I might see if I can find a way to download and render some of the underlying data. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 01:19, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Got everything there; lava domes can be components of stratovolcanoes. Thanks for the map effort, too. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 07:29, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I think this is ready for FAC. I'm not sure if anything will come of the maps; the one image I have found so far is not large scale enough, and the rendering is going to be subject to a lot of ifs.  If I come up with anything I'll let you know, but I wouldn't wait. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 10:43, 16 May 2018 (UTC)