User:Catherinepeshek/Putana (volcano)/Catherinepeshek Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

Frojasvilches07


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * There is not link to a draft so I reviewed the article.


 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Putana (volcano)

Evaluate the drafted changes
I could not find a drafted article, so the review here briefly addresses the overall article.

The lead clearly describes the overall content covered in the article.

In general, the article covers important aspects of Putana volcano, such as its location, important features, eruptive history, and background information on mining. It is very descriptive in each section, but some information could be organized better or reworded for simplification. Separating the main sections into subsections would be useful for organizing ideas and for clarity when reading. 'Context'

I would restate the first sentence as "Putana lies in a remote region of difficult access, on the border between Chile and Bolivia..." And remove the second sentence.

The second paragraph should refer Putana to its geologic context, first stating which volcanic zone it is within (3rd paragraph). Furthermore, reference to the Peruvian and Pampean segments are not clearly explained in the context of Putana.

The third paragraph contains extra information that does not belong on this page, such as the description of Lascar volcano.

'The volcano'

I suggest breaking this section up unto subsections, such as 'Summit,' 'Deposits,' and 'Edifice.'

'Eruptive history'

This section covers the eruptive history of Putana well. The statment that the eruption 'was a major one' should be discarded or included as a direct quote, if appropriate.

'Fumaroles'

This section could include subsections such as 'Gas emissions,' 'Activity,' and 'Mining.'

The references are separated into different sections, References, sources, and bibliography. Are these supposed to be one section?