Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Nevado del Ruiz/archive2


 * The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted by User:SandyGeorgia 15:59, 28 December 2008.

Nevado del Ruiz

 * Nominators: &mdash; Ceran [ speak  ]
 * previous FAC (15:49, 12 October 2008)

This is honestly the article I've put my utmost effort into; ie. my best work. It's made huge progress from the last FAC, with copy editing from some of the best &mdash; Ling.Nut, Ruslik0, Dabomb87, Serendipodous, and others. I feel now that this article meets the FA criteria. Also, to fulfill EOTW's request ;). &mdash; Ceran [ speak  ] 21:55, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Support Meets all the criteria - great job Ceranthor! A nitpick, however: The massive quote by the student does look a bit strange - perhaps you could use a smaller quote by, I don't know, someone with an article. Anyway, that's my only concern. ~ the editorofthewiki  ( talk / contribs / editor review ) ~ 01:25, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
 * What kind of script do you suggest? I'm currently using blockquoting. &mdash; Ceran [ speak  ] 01:49, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Done. Ceran →(cheer→chime →carol) 20:38, 19 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment: The article covers the volcano's geologically recent activity well, but seems light on earlier volcanic history. The article seems to suggest that this doesn't extend back before 6660 BC, which I have trouble believing.
 * Made a note earliest recorded eruption. &mdash; Ceran [  speak  ] 21:11, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm pretty sure that's wrong. You're probably reading too much into the Smithsonian's eruptive history - they only cover Holocene eruptions (i.e. back to about 10,000 years ago). I've changed the text accordingly. I recall reading somewhere about an eruption 10,000-15,000 years ago; I'll try to track that down. -- Avenue (talk) 09:02, 17 December 2008 (UTC)


 * One minor quibble: the 1845 lahar sounds like it was triggered by just an earthquake, so it shouldn't be listed under a "Past eruptions" heading. Should we make this more inclusive? And this may seem obvious, but it would be good to spell out the potential hazards the volcano poses. Which nearby settlements are most at risk?
 * As mentioned below, it is not apparent that there are any towns remaining near the volcano. &mdash; Ceran [  speak  ] 21:07, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Where below? I don't see it. Also, how much risk does the volcano pose to Bogotá? -- Avenue (talk) 08:29, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * The USGS hazard map suggests that the volcano poses some risk to the city of Manizales (over 400,000 people), and so does our article on the city. Manizales is actually closer to the mountain than Armero was. We need to say something about this. -- Avenue (talk) 21:23, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * done. Ceran →(cheer→chime →carol) 20:49, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Besides the effects of volcanism, human occupation, activities and traditions seem to be covered only in "the Sleeping Lion" nickname and the climbing history. This is probably not comprehensive. Are there any relevant native traditions?
 * The article seems to have some MOS problems, and also still seems to need a thorough copyedit; I've seen a few grammar and punctuation errors in just the few paragraphs I've checked. There's one dead link. Not insurmountable, but I think there's still a bit to do here. -- Avenue (talk) 03:01, 11 December 2008 (UTC)


 * We should mention that the mountain is part of a national park (Parque de Los Nevados). Something about tourism would also be nice. -- Avenue (talk) 09:24, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Another concern, along the same lines, is that the article is in Category:Colombian ecological attractions, but there's nothing in the article that indicates why. -- Avenue (talk) 08:39, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, the article is about a volcano. In themselves, any volcano is considered a ecological attraction for tourism. &mdash; Ceran [  speak  ] 21:09, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Why is it an ecological attraction? What features of the ecology here are attractive to tourists? Are certain animals, plants, or ecosystems especially well known?
 * More generally, what do tourists typically do or see here? Do they usually come for the scenery, to climb the mountain, for cultural activities, or something else? -- Avenue (talk) 08:18, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I'll try and search, I guess. Ceran →(cheer→chime →carol) 20:38, 19 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Alright, I'll get to that ASAP. &mdash; Ceran [ speak  ] 12:08, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Los Nevados done. &mdash; Ceran [  speak  ]
 * 1845 changed to 1845 mudflow. &mdash; Ceran [ speak  ] 22:42, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I meant the earlier headings. I've changed them now. -- Avenue (talk) 09:13, 12 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Please use a consistent format on times and specify am or pm:
 * Newly installed telemetering seismometers recorded a tremor of indefinite amplitude on 18 November at 02:00 that preceded an ash emission at 0600. Later, a stronger tremor that lasted from about 06:00 to 09:45 the next day preceded a small explosion at 10:30.
 * Done. &mdash; Ceran [  speak  ] 23:13, 13 December 2008 (UTC)


 * There are no converts on measurements, and a MoS review will be needed.
 * Converts done. &mdash; Ceran [  speak  ] 21:31, 12 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Copyedit needs as well, sample:
 * After moving further away the lahar grew in size to almost four times of their original volume.
 * Well, that's done at least. &mdash; Ceran [  speak  ] 22:21, 13 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Sandy Georgia (Talk) 05:18, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Comments -
 * Support The article is comprehensive and scientifically sound, but can benefit from some additional copy-edit. The references are reliable. One problem that I see is accessdates, which are not formatted consistently. This is a problem of Cite XXX templates, which are being significantly changed right now. I would recommend manual formatting of all accessdates. Ruslik (talk) 08:41, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I've tried to fix that. I'm not really sure why, but I just checked out two of the references and they were exactly the same, but the accessdate was different. Any advice? &mdash; Ceran [ speak  ] 23:07, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Some of the Cite XXX templates currently autoformat accessdates, while others do not. I recommend manually writing dates: i.e. December 12, 2008 instead of 2008-12-12. Ruslik (talk) 09:24, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
 * http://www.lapatria.com/Noticias/ver_noticia.aspx?CODNOT=46476&CODSEC=2 this link seems to lead to null content?
 * I replaced this ref with one in English language. I also added a ref to Annals of Glaciology and added statistics about glaciers. Ruslik (talk) 10:25, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
 * The World Book link needs to note that registration is required.
 * done. &mdash; Ceran [ speak  ] 23:07, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Newspaper titles in the references need to be in italics, you do this with cite news by using the work field for the newspaper title.
 * It seems not to be possible as the template still requires title parameter. Ruslik (talk) 10:30, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Err.. the "title" field is for the title of the specific article you're citing. Work is for the name of the newspaper, publisher is for the company that publishes the paper. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:45, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Done. Ruslik (talk) 19:52, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:47, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Query Support Hi Ceran, interesting read, it left me thinking, Why the multiple names, was one the Pre Columbian name? & Did the Mountain feature in pre-columbian religions of the area? Also pervaded doesn't sound right to me, would spread out and thinned be better?  Ϣere Spiel  Chequers  18:21, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
 * The volcano is called mostly Nevado del Ruiz, but sometimes less familiar sources refer to it as Mount Ruiz. The last one is its indigenous name, (thanks Avenue). Fixed pervaded. Could you clarify what you mean by your second question? &mdash; Ceran [ speak  ] 21:38, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Hi Ceranthor, my andean experience and reading is from much further south and things may have been different in that area (I think its too far north for the Pachamama). But it wouldn't surprise me if the volcano had theological significance to the locals pre the conquistadores. If the sources don't cover it then no worries, but if they do it would be neat to add something along the lines of "Prior to the Spanish conquest of 15?? the local ????? tribe called the mountain Kumanday and worshipped it as an aspect of the god/goddess ???? / feared it as a dangerous place.  Ϣere Spiel  Chequers  22:07, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Image review: Please link to the source where the image was downloaded for File:Ruiz volcano.jpg. If the image is indeed taken by NASA, please include a photo ID number per File:ISS after STS-124 06 2008 cropped.jpg, and change the licensing from GFDL to.
 * Done. &mdash; Ceran [  speak  ] 21:34, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Please complete an summary for File:El ruiz volcano.jpg.
 * Done. &mdash; Ceran [  speak  ] 23:26, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Both source links for File:Nevado del Ruiz 1985.jpg are dead. An active link needs to be inserted to verify this is a public domain image.
 * I have fixed the second dead link, although I think it could have been assumed that an upload by Hike395 was legit. -- Avenue (talk) 18:51, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
 * The licensing for File:Armero ruiz lahar.gif says this is a USGS image, but the source links to the University of Oregon. Unless proof that the image was taken by a US government agency is apparent in the summary, public domain is not an appropriate licensing. If the University of Oregon owns this image, permission should be obtained from them to use it.
 * Done, see file page. &mdash; Ceran [  speak  ] 20:25, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Let me know if you have questions. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Moni3 (talk • contribs)
 * I fixed some issues in the image summary pages. They appear to be fine as of today. --Moni3 (talk) 14:37, 15 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Support - although I don't like that massive quote in the middle of the article... RockManQ Review me 18:20, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment I hate to be a pain, but the refs are a mess. Some are missing accessdates, and many are of different formats. ~ the editorofthewiki  ( talk / contribs / editor review ) ~ 19:52, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Accessdates are not necessary for scientific journals and books. They are only required for websites and news. Ruslik (talk) 20:00, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Ref no.s 1 and 49 don't look like scientific journals to me. I guess I'll fix some for you. ~ the editorofthewiki  ( talk / contribs / editor review ) ~ 20:08, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Ref 20 needs an ISBN. ~ the editorofthewiki  ( talk / contribs / editor review ) ~ 20:20, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
 * What? Ref 20 is a web source. &mdash; Ceran [  speak  ] 22:07, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Oops, I meant 22. ~ the editorofthewiki  ( talk / contribs / editor review ) ~ 22:11, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
 * It's a USGS paper. Might not have one, but I'll try. &mdash; Ceran [  speak  ] 22:12, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I've added the URL, at least. -- Avenue (talk) 03:41, 14 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment - This looks like a great article. However, while reading the infomation I noticed there is nothing much about when this volcano started to form (i.e. ancestral activity) other than a list of years in the "Past eruptions and lahars" section. More infomation about those eruptions would make this article more useful. Black Tusk (talk) 00:20, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I added a short summary of the eruptive history of the volcano during the Quaternary. Ruslik (talk) 08:11, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
 * The volcano has been active since the Pleistocene period, which began 1.8 million years ago and ended 10,000 years ago. It does not mention history of the ancestral volcano during that period, meaning this article pays too much attention on the Holocene (10,000 years ago to present) cone rather than the ancestral cone, which apparently has been around longer than the Holocene cone. Any infomation in the introduction should be mentioned in the article..... Black Tusk (talk) 01:14, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I again expanded the article (see Early history subsection). All information that is in the lead is in the main text. Ruslik (talk) 07:34, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Support, article seems to be better equipped now. Black Tusk (talk) 21:11, 24 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Weak support - I made a few changes myself, but overall, it's a well-written and well-researched article. There are places where the wording gets a tad clunky, but I feel the article meets the criteria. Good work. –Juliancolton Happy Holidays 15:19, 24 December 2008 (UTC)


 * The structure of this article confuses me:
 * 3.3 Armero tragedy of 1985
 * 3.3.1 Pre-eruptive activity
 * 3.3.2 Eruption and lahar flow
 * 4 Relief efforts
 * 4.1 Aftermath
 * 4.2 Early warning
 * 4.3 Current threats

The "4 Relief efforts" section deals with the Armero tragedy rather than the volcano itself, so I don't understand why it's a separate section. "Early warning" appears unrelated to Relief efforts, so I'm unclear why it's there. Same for "Current threats".

The two-sentence section in "Current threats" is short for a section, and offers ample opportunity for copyediting (which may be present in the rest of the article, I haven't looked):


 * The volcano now poses as a threat to nearby Manizales, a city close to the mountain. A future eruption could cause massive casualties in the city, as its population exceeds 300,000 people.

Perhaps something along the lines of:


 * The volcano poses a threat to nearby Manizales, a city of 300,000 close to the mountain; an eruption could cause massive casualties in the city.

Since it's probably only a sentence, unsure why it warrants an entire section, and the sections are strange (also, see WP:MOSDATE). Sandy Georgia (Talk) 22:48, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Where did the mountain get its name?
 * This sentence is awkward: The volcano is part of the volcanic Andean mountains.
 * I've left other inline comments.
 * Foreign phrases are in WP:ITALICS
 * The Armero tragedy is referenced in the lead with no context yet provided.
 * The lead mentions it's the second-largest volcano in Colombia; what is first?
 * Why "may"? What is the evidence?  The prominent La Olleta pyroclastic cone, located on the volcano's southwest flank, may also have been active in historical times.
 * Attribution needed (who says it's due to global warming?) The glaciers of Nevado del Ruiz were formed over thousands of years; however, due to global warming, they are beginning to melt.
 * This may need an endash, unsure, should ask Tony1: The volcano is a part Ruiz-Tolima massif, ...
 * WP:MOSNUM, spelling out of numbers less than ten needs attention: As in the 1985 eruption, the eruption was preceded by a large earthquake 3 days prior ... but inconsistency at ... It later split into two parts after hitting  ...
 * Context, awkward: Nevado del Ruiz was very active in the three months before it erupted. (before it erupted in 1985 ... something is needed to complete this thought).
 * Better linking needed in "Pre-eruptive activity".
 * Flow issues: this sentence is mentioned before the context is provided. The destruction wrought by the 1985 eruption was partially due to the fact that scientists vacillated over whether or not to evacuate the area.
 * What are these infections that can't be treated by known antibiotics? In fact, some who survived were later killed by infections that could not be treated with known antibiotics.

I stopped there; would like to see more tweaking. Sandy Georgia (Talk) 23:21, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I restructured the article and I think I fixed all other issues except two: may also have been active in historical times. it is what the source actually says; ndash in my opinion is not necessary in Ruiz-Tolima. Ruslik (talk) 07:55, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

There's still quite a bit needed here. Why is lahar sometimes italicized, sometimes not? (Why is it italicized at all?) Foreign phrases are in WP:ITALICS; what about Nevado del Ruiz? Newspapers should be in italics (Miami Herald). The Aftermath section is all about the Armero tragedy; why is it separate from that section (it's not the Aftermath of the mountain). There are still copyedit needs and the prose needs some shine, sample: The volcano erupted several more times through 1985–1994. More importantly, please compare the organizational structure of this article to Mount St. Helens, in terms of material covered and weight given to individual eruptions. Mt. St. Helens is 4,500 words, mostly about the mountain, with 25% of the text summarizing the 1980 eruption of Mount St. Helens. This article is 2,800 words, of which approximately 1,700 (60%) are about the Armero tragedy. It looks like this article is about the Armero tragedy, rather than the mountain (including a very large block quote entirely about Armero). There are organizational, prose, and MoS issues to be resolved still. Sandy Georgia (Talk) 17:00, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
 * As for the concern this is all about AT: If I were going for that FA, it would be a lot more detailed. If I wrote an article without the eruption, the article would be less than a B-class article. I'll face it, the mountain would be a little stubby article without that section. ₪ Ceran →(cheer→chime →carol) 17:48, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I have an idea. Leave me some time to figure out a way to try and make this work. ₪ Ceran →(cheer→chime →carol) 23:06, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Oppose. This needs considerable work on the writing before it's of the required professional standard. Please consider bringing in unfamiliar copy-editors who have the advantage of "strategicv distance". Let's take a quick look at the lead:
 * "The stratovolcano lies within the Pacific Ring of Fire, an area of the earth's crust where the land is unusually unstable, resulting in a large amount of tectonic and volcanic activity." So does the Ring of Fire or the instability result in this activity?
 * "It is the northernmost volcano of the Andean Volcanic Belt and lies about 80 miles (129 km) west of Bogotá." Two separate facts, or should we signal close causality to the reader? ("... Belt, lying about ..."). While we're at it, I think MOSNUM says to drop the "about", especially when 129 km looks rather precise. And is there a special reason for going against the MOSNUM rule that the main units are metric (converted to US) in this type of article?
 * "second-most-active volcano" (you could probably drop both hyphens if you prefer it).
 * "Pleistocene" ... readers have to hit the link to learn the time-scale? Or just say "for at least 10,000 years", or whatever it is.
 * " Inhabitants of the towns around the volcano refer to it as "the Sleeping Lion", as it had been dormant for nearly 150 years before the Armero lahar." Can you avoid the repetition "as ... as"? Since "the Armero lahar" is the SL, this is awkward. And "it", I guess, is the volcano. Not a good sentence.
 * "The mountain was created by subduction of the oceanic Nazca Plate beneath the continental South American Plate." "The" is missing.

Spot-checks below:
 * "Map of major Colombian volcanoes" (caption): this indicates that there are other major C vs. If not, add "the".
 * "a mountain range that runs along the western coast of South America". Spot the two redundant words.
 * "The first successful ascent was made in 1936 by W. Cunet, and Albert Grasser," - remove two separate redundant words. "partly by ski." - not English. Semicolon before "they".

These are just random examples of why the whole text needs scrutiny. Tony  (talk)  12:53, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I fixed all issues mentioned above, and I will try to find somebody to do requested copy-edit. Ruslik (talk) 11:02, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
 * And according to the Pleistocene article, this era dates back to only 1.8 million years ago. Yet the article states 2 million years. In this case, Nevado del Ruiz formed in the late Pliocene period. Black Tusk (talk) 18:06, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
 * There is little difference between 2 and 1.8 million years. Precision of all these ages is limited. Ruslik (talk) 20:36, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Right, which is why I think Pliocene should be included with Pleistocene somehow. Someone not familar with the subject will eventually notice this age issue and would likely become confused by the two different years/eras. Black Tusk (talk) 02:10, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Fixed. Ruslik (talk) 13:00, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks. This is also because one of the references states "Pliocene to early Pleistocene". Black Tusk (talk) 21:42, 27 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment - I have removed a large chunk of the Armero tragedy section, removing all the unnecessary stuff. ₪ Ceran →(cheer→chime →carol) 23:19, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Oppose Comment  The article is much better organized now, and is extensively researched. Some of the text however too closely follows the language of sources used in that research, as shown by comparision of the second paragraph of the section entitled Pre-eruptive activity with the abstract cited in support of that paragraph. Sparing use of quotes is permissible, but it is too easy to copy text, change some words and punctuation, and paste the result into an article. (When relying on a source it may be best to avoid copying and pasting entirely; even if you make some changes and, as here, do not intend to plagarize, it is too easy to adopt the structure, phrasing, and wording of the source. Consult the sources, but do not use their text as a basis for your work.)  Here, it is too close to the cited source, and also has a style markedly different than the rest of the article. A thorough comparision of sources with text, and copyediting to eliminate overuse of borrowed phrasing, should result in a more consistent style. Kablammo (talk) 23:59, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Hmm. I must not have been tired at the time, as i often am. Could you specify where it is? ₪ Ceran →(cheer→chime →carol) 12:56, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I rewrote the offending paragraph. Ruslik (talk) 13:00, 27 December 2008 (UTC)


 * As mentioned above, it would be best if there were a thorough comparision of text with all sources. Here is another example.  The article states:
 * "In 1845, another massive lahar caused by a large earthquake on the summit flooded the upper valley of the River Lagunillas, killing over a thousand people. The mudflow continued for 70 kilometres (43 mi) downstream before thinning out across a plain in the lower valley floor."
 * The cited source states:
 * "In 1845, an immense lahar flooded the upper valley of the River Lagunillas, killing over 1000 people. It continued for 70 kilometers downstream before spreading across a plain in the lower valley floor."
 * I don't know if there are similar incidents, but if there are, the article should be withdrawn, corrected, and resubmitted. I have changed my comment to oppose.Kablammo (talk) 15:40, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I found a few paragraphs that followed the sources too closely before. I rewrote them. However I can not say that I checked everything. I also do not have the books that are cited. Ruslik (talk) 16:26, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Withdrawn, to address prospective issues. ₪ Ceran →(cheer→chime →carol) 15:55, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.