Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Tutupaca/archive1


 * 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 promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 13:15, 29 May 2018.

Tutupaca

 * Nominator(s): Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:17, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

This article is about a volcano in Peru, which is notable as the site of one of the major historical mega-landslides on active volcanoes during a major eruption in 1802 or so and still potentially a threat. This is the first time I've nominated an article for FA status (I've reviewed images in other people's FACs); and  should be credited as well if it passes as they did thorough copyedit work on it. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:17, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I did a review pass, but not enough to get a conomination credit, I don't think. I will read through again in the next few days. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 22:25, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I agree. My comments weren't thorough enough to be a conominator, though I appreciate the consideration. I will also read through again before I !vote.  ceran  thor 23:16, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Few More Comments from Ceranthor

 * "bears traces of former glaciation." - seems a little flowery
 * "One of these volcanoes collapsed in historical time, probably in 1802, generating a large debris avalanche with a volume probably exceeding 0.6–0.8 cubic kilometres (0.14–0.19 cu mi), and a pyroclastic flow." - no comma necessary before "and a pyroclastic"
 * "The whole volcano rises from an elevation of 4,400–4,600 metres (14,400–15,100 ft)." - the way you've written this, it sounds as though the volcano is only 200 meters tall
 * Should mention that Shiveluch is in Russia
 * "The collapse apparently started from the hydrothermal system of the volcano and progressed to involve a growing lava dome,[21] " - awkward phrasing
 * Still think the Samaniego thing needs to be changed - perhaps you could list the names of the main researchers? or maybe just adding et al. will be sufficient

Otherwise, I think the prose is good. Support per 1a.  ceran  thor 00:29, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I think I got these; does it merit a dedicated source for the location of Shiveluch? Added the et al. as well~since it's a large number of researchers. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:58, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Does the source itself not clarify that Shiveluch is in Russia?  ceran  thor 21:09, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
 * No, for volcanologists that is probably common knowledge. JoJo Eumerus mobile (talk) 06:53, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I think it's fine not to cite that then, as general knowledge. It may not hurt to add one citation for its location if you want to be safe.  ceran  thor 20:43, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Images are appropriately licensed, but suggest editing lead caption for grammar. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:52, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Got that one, I think. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:58, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

Comments from Mike Christie
A couple more things I spotted this read-through: That's everything I can see. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:04, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Some lava domes form small hills on the southern part of the older complex, and the older complex was: repeats "older complex". I thought about "...on the southern part of the older complex, which was..." but then "which" sounds like it refers to the southern part only.  How about "The older complex, which includes small hills formed from lava domes on its southern part, was the source of..."?
 * The occurrence of trachyandesite and trachyte has also been described: how about "Trachyandesite and trachyte also occur", or "have also been identified"?
 * In the "Sector collapse" section, is the source of the two units relevant to the fact that one of them formed a granular flow? If so it's fine as is, but if not I'd move that information up so the information about the flow is more compact:
 * The two units of the debris avalanche are distinguished by their appearance. One, which appears to have been formed from the basal part of Tutupaca, features 100–200-metre (330–660 ft) long hummock-like hills, as is typical for volcanic debris avalanches. The other, which appears to come from the more recent lava domes of the eastern peak, has ridges which vary in length from 100 to 150 metres (330 to 490 ft). The ridges range from only a few meters to more than 0.5 metres (1 ft 8 in) in height, and from 10 to 30 metres (33 to 98 ft) in height. The second unit probably formed a granular flow, which is known to cause sorting of the materials within it; similar ridges have been observed in other collapse deposits such as at Shiveluch volcano in Russia.
 * Such monitoring would entail surveilling earthquake activity, changes in the composition of fumarole gases and deformation of the volcanoes, and real time video surveillance: needs a tweak: the first item in the list is a verb, "surveilling", as if we are going to get a list of activities, but then we get two nouns. Changing all three to nouns would probably be the simplest way out.
 * This project, which costed 18,500,000 Peruvian sols: "costed" is wrong, but this is a future project, so I'm not sure if "cost" would be right. Should it be "budgeted to cost" or something like that?
 * Did the first two points (with a slight modification on the first) and the last one; regarding the third I'd think so seeing as the source says The ridged deposit sub-unit 2a is composed of this rock from the active dome and the hydrothermal system. This material collapsed and efficiently fragmented while propagating downslope, leading to a granular mass flow that fed the ridged unit. Regarding the fourth point would "the recording" be better? It does sound like an odd sentence thus. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 10:04, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
 * For the second point I meant to suggest replacing the whole sentence with one of the shortened versions -- we don't need to say the occurrence has been described, do we? We can just say either that those forms occur or that they have been described.
 * OK on the third point. For the fourth, how about "This would entail surveillance of earthquake activity, changes in the composition of fumarole gases and deformation of the volcanoes, and real time video"?  I think "surveillance" is implied by "real time video". Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 11:11, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
 * That works (regarding surveillance). Rewrote the trachyte thing to one of the shorter versions. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 13:46, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Support. I went ahead and made the last change. The article meets all the FA criteria, except that I haven't checked 2c and 3. Note to the co-ordinators: I take it from the recent WT:FAC discussion that a "support" should be assumed to cover everything but 2c and 3, since those have the specialist reviews. I'm going to assume that's taken as read from now on; specifically, I'll be checking 1c unless I say I am not. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:55, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Comments from FunkMonk

 * I'll review this soon. FunkMonk (talk) 19:57, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
 * INGEMMET is only mentioned once, why not spell it out?
 * There are a lot of duplicate links, perhaps try this script:
 * Removed duplicate links and spelled out name in the first instance. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:59, 5 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Is the article written in UK or US English? I see "metres" used, but also "destabilized", though I know "ize" can also be used in UK English.
 * "such as at Shiveluch volcano" At the?
 * "a pyroclastic flow was erupted from the volcano" Is "was" needed here?
 * What does the name of the volcano mean?
 * Any kind of folklore or other history associated with the volcano?
 * The English that I've learned, which I suspect is in part a mixture between two styles. I am not sure if it's correct to say "the foo volcano", my impression was that one does not put an article before a proper name. I think that past is correct for the "pyroclastic flow" since it was erupted in the past, it is not currently being erupted. The only folklore I can find is that the people of Candarave consider Yucamane the "good" volcano and Tutupaca the "bad" one; is that worth mentioning? Unlike say Coropuna or Tacora Tutupaca isn't really that important in religion, seems like, but that little contrast to Yucamane may be still worth adding. Regarding etymology, I cannot find a reliable source for the name - closest thing is this blog and even then it only gives an explanation for "tutu" and "paca". Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 18:44, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
 * As I'm not a native English speaker either, I won't press those issue. But I do think the part about it being "bad" is worth mentioning, and I think it would also be worth to go the extra mile to translate the name, perhaps even looking at a dictionary or consulting someone. FunkMonk (talk) 18:57, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I shall handle these two things tomorrow if nobody comes ahead. Bookmarking Pacocahua (Puno) since its source may be useful for etymology. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:02, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Added the oral section; I cannot find a dictionary that mentions the word "tutu". Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:39, 6 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Support - everything nicely addressed. FunkMonk (talk) 19:41, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

Comments from Maunus
Just a comment on the etymology section for now. I don't think it is a good idea to mention that means eagle unless there is a source for that specifically being the case in the name of the volcano - there may well be other meanings of /paka/ in Aymara - and it could mean something else in the combination with tutu (this dictionary gives tutuka as "duststorm"). in Spanish orthography may for example also represent the Aymaraword /paqa/. So what we need is to find a good source for the meaning of the name itself.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 15:59, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I am also finding sources seemingly suggesting that it is not from Aymara but from Quechua - but I am uncertain if they are reliable enough to trust them to distingiush adequately between Quechua and Aymara. One source says that the word tutu means "udder" (presumably of llama or alpaca) because the mountain resembles an udder, and paka is from the verb pakay "to hide" - giving a meaning of hidden udder. Another source that I can only access in snippet view mentions the "hidden udder" etymology but seems to be arguing that this is likely a folk etymology, but unfortunately I cannot see the entire discussion. ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 17:26, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I would suggest removing the Aymara etymology as OR and adding the Quechua etymology "hidden udder" with the note that this has been attributed to the shape of the mountain. I am not sure how to cite the two texts though since it is not possible to find even the authors name in snippet view. It seems only the page number and journal name can be found: Revista peruana de Andinismo y glaciologia (1971) p. 54, Revista andina, Volume 15, Issue 1 1997 p 501.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 17:48, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
 * This source from 1862 by Mateo Paz Soldán describes Tutupaca as a very poetic volcano and includes a small ode to the volcano in French and Spanish.Géographie du Péron, corrigée et augmentée par M.F. Paz Soldan, tr. par P.A. Mouqueron, avec la collaboration de M. Rouaud y Paz Soldan. ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 18:01, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Anoher good reason to consider a quechua etymology, Father Jorge Lira publishjed a Quechua folk tale titled "Tutupaka llakta - el mancebo que venció el diablo (Tutupaka LLakta the youth who defeated the devil)". Here Tutupaka llakta apparently is the name of a Quechua youth who bets with the devil and wins.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 18:13, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
 * To be honest, I was extremely dubious about the whole etymology thing ... in fact I'll remove it. I am somewhat wary of sourcing anything to a Google Books snippet view for the reasons you mention, but maybe there are complete text versions elsewhere ... I'll check. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 18:53, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I think you're right to be cautious; it might be best to pull it all out, make a request at WP:RX, and re-add it if when you get a copy. I don't think it's necessary for promotion to FA. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 19:01, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
 * The good thing is that the "Revista andina" has a website, the bad thing however is that I can't find any mention of Tutupaca in the relevant pages. The Mateo Paz Soldán story is also here and seems potentially worthy of inclusion. I'll ask on WP:RX about Revista peruana de Andinismo y glaciologia. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:24, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I think it would be expected that the meaning (or proposed meanings) of the name of an article's subject should be mentioned somewhere, whether in a section of its own or not, and it seems there are some reliable sources about it that could be hunted down (WP:RX?) before we give it up. FunkMonk (talk) 21:28, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Well, we can't really expect it in cases where that information is not included in sources. I have written to an acquaintance who is a Quechua specialist to see if he can help.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 07:15, 8 April 2018 (UTC)


 * I think the ode might even be able to bear being cited in full if you dare using one of the much-discussed "decorative" quote boxes - or maybe just as a block quote. I'd volunteer to translate it if you decide to. ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 09:37, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't mind the quoteboxes, so as long as there are no undue weight concerns. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:41, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Here is a lyric translation respectoing the original rhyme Below the original spanish text with a literal non-rhyming translation. This is of course just a suggestion, if you (or other reviewers) don't find that it will improve the article you are free to leave it out.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 10:44, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Good. I'll wait for some comments though, since it's one person's ode and not a very well known one. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:08, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I would say it is probably entirely unknown. But then part of our job here is to inform the readers of that which they don't know. ;) ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 16:14, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
 * The author seems to be Mariano Felipe Paz Soldán; if that's right we should link him, of course. I found this on Google books, which as far as I can tell (my Spanish is limited to restaurant terms) is an edited selection of poetry.  It includes this ode on p. 415.  I'd say that means a third party has found the ode worthy of mention, so we can include it -- if it were just Paz Soldán giving it, it would be harder to justify. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 16:54, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
 * It is not completely clear to me whether the ode is by Mateo Paz Soldán (who has an article in the spanish wiki), since his brother Mariano Felipe corrected and prepared his brothers it for publication. The text just says "I wrote this when I was twenty years old", but it is not clear whether this "I" is the original autor or the editor and annotator.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 19:22, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I cannot access that (https://books.google.com/books?id=yI1NAQAAMAAJ) so I'll pass on it. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:41, 13 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Researching the etymology a bit more I think the Aymara etymology is better - the "hidden udder" etymology of Quechua seems less reasonable than the possible Aymara etymology of tutu "great" + either paka "eagle" or paqa which seems to mean something related to royalty or leadership. This is OR based on this dictionary, of course.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 06:55, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
 * In that case I would not include it. If there is more than one possible meaning, I would wait until a definitive source comes up rather than engaging in OR. Is there any consensus on including the ode? I personally think that whether we include it or not is not really relevant to FA status. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:34, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
 * The problem with etymology, particularly in indigenous languages, is that there is usually no definitive source but often several conflicting ones. Here I think, that the only etymology we have a source for seems unlikely to be correct given the evidence (this judgment, though based on my professional experience of working with etymology in indigenous languages in aother context, is of course also a form of OR- but I think when excluding information we have some more leeway on making editorial decisions). So basically my recommendation is to either exclude the etymology entirely, or to include the Quechua etymology with a hedging wording that demonstrates that this is a suggestion and not a definitive etymology. I agree that including the Ode really has little importance for the assessment of FA status. The Ode and the eetymology is a kind of cultural information that I think is highly interesting and serves to make an article more engaging for the reader - but which in the end is more an item of curiosity than of necessity.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 09:45, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

, can I just check if either of you have anything to add here? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:50, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Well, I for one am happy to support. The depth of research seems good, my literature search has not been able to find anything that seemed like it should be cited but wasn't. ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 11:17, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Well, I see that someone has added a new image to the article after 's review. Also, I am not sure if we've had a source review yet. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:06, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Licensing on the new image is fine, but captions that aren't complete sentences shouldn't end in periods. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:48, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Comments by Wehwalt
Seems in pretty good shape. Just a few things.
 * "Some lava domes form small hills on the southern part of the older complex,[11] and the older complex was the source of an ignimbrite that covers the western and southern parts of the volcano.[3]" I might delete "and the older complex", and thus begin "which was the source of an ..."
 * You refer to a "Lake Suches" and a "Laguna Suches", both red-linked. Are these the same?
 * "During historical time," I might say "times" for "time".
 * "Today fumaroles occur on the summit of Tutupaca.[30]" I would expect you need a comma after "Today".
 * If you deem INGEMMET worthy of five red links, you could say what it is.
 * "The Peruvian INGEMMET has published a volcano hazard map for Tutupaca,[36] but the volcano was not monitored itself since it is not active.[37]" I would move "itself" to after "the volcano" or possibly to after "was".
 * "This project, which costed 18,500,000 Peruvian sols" I'm not sure you can use "costed" alone like that. Possibly "which was costed at" or similar. Also, I thought the currency was the nuevo sol. In any event, a dollar or other major currency equivalent would be nice.
 * "Hot springs on the foot of the Tutupaca volcano[41] discharge water into the rivers.[5]"--Wehwalt (talk) 17:11, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
 * First two are already done? As is the "costed" one - since 2015 the name is simply "sol" per Peruvian sols and used To USD for currency conversion. Added a note to explain INGEMMET. Remedied the other issues - is there a problem with the "hot springs" sentence? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:25, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Sorry, on the last, would say "at the foot".--Wehwalt (talk) 03:25, 16 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Support Looks quite good.00Wehwalt (talk) 03:25, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

Coord note
As you noted above, Jo-Jo, we still need a source review for formatting and reliability, and as it's your first nom I'd like to see a spotcheck of sources for accurate use and avoidance of close paraphrasing. You can post requests for these at the top of WT:FAC (unless any of the reviewers above would like to have a go). Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 04:56, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I've posted the request. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:22, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

Support from Squeamish Ossifrage
I haven't really done a prose review here in any sense, but I'm concerned that this just isn't very comprehensive.
 * This is a 19,000'+ peak in one of the Great Ranges. Is there any information about climbing it? There may not be much, but it's something to look for.
 * Botany or zoology?
 * Economic resources? I see some indication that Tutupaca has at least been considered as a potential source of geothermal power. As far as mineral extraction goes, you don't normally expect a lot of that from a dormant volcano, but there's at least one source suggesting an economically-significant sulfur deposit at Tutupaca:
 * And while we're on the topic, there's a terrible Google snippet view of a US Bureau of Mines monthly periodical that Google mis-processes like it was a book (a frequent problem!), suggesting that there was at one point a "Tutupaca Mining Company" mining... something at the base of the volcano. It would be obnoxious to figure out how to get access to that text correctly (and then source it correctly!), but might be worth the trouble, as might sources in Peruvian material I lack access to.


 * There appears to be some more detailed discussion of the mountain's geology and geochemistry also. See:

But I mostly dropped by for the source formatting check. Because everyone loves source formatting!
 * The La República source doesn't have a byline, and so shouldn't include an author field. "Redacción LR" isn't a name. Redacción is literally "drafting" (in the sense of a written work), and "LR" is shorthand for the name of the publication.
 * The title of the Soldán work is Géographie du Pérou. With a u, not an n, despite the typo in the Internet Archive's description. The rest of that longish bit of elided text is just the title page telling you who wrote it, who corrected it (since it was published posthumously), and who translated it to French. All of which is nice to know, but none of which actually needs to be part of the title here. In any case, this is a book and needs to be referenced like one. The publisher was Firmin Didot Frères, Fils et Cie. The scanned version appears to be of OCLC 253927093.
 * You (red)link to INGEMMET in the body. I probably wouldn't link it in the references, although others may vary (because they like publisher links more than I do...). Whether or not you retain a link in what is currently reference 5, you definitely don't also need one from reference 14.
 * Same thing goes for the Smithsonian links, now that I think about it.

At this point, I'm leaning oppose. There's nothing wrong with short articles about narrow subjects reaching FA status when they reflect a comprehensive summary of the topic, but I'm somewhat dubious that this is all there is to say about this mountain. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 00:01, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
 * In the title of the Amstutz source, penitentes is italicized in the original and should be here as well. That said, the article title should probably be written in sentence case for consistency with your other journal article references.
 * The Begazo source wasn't published in "volume 0"; rather, there's just no volume number.
 * In the Hancco source, I'm pretty sure I'd stick Diario Correo as the |work (italicizing it) rather than |agency (not).
 * Reference 46 uses a different field for "La República" than reference 3 does, which makes the latter in normal face, and the former italicized. You probably want to match the former here.
 * I really have no idea what works you put in the Sources section versus placing in the References. Typically, I'm accustomed to book-form sources getting the separate treatment. But really, you can do this however you want, as long as there's a consistently-applied rule. Is there a consistenly applied rule?
 * The Pauccara and Matsuda source should basically be formatted like a journal article rather than like a book. Its title should be in sentence case. The journal should be given as Proceedings World Geothermal Congress 2015, which you probably think looks ungrammatical, and so do I, but that's what the source insists is correct. The publisher (of the proceedings themselves, rather than the sponsor of the research) is actually Stanford University rather than INGEMMET, but publishers are generally omitted for journal articles anyway.
 * Why are your external links included? Are they reliable sources that add information not already covered by the article? If so, why aren't they references? If not, how do they benefit readers?
 * I'll action these issues later (I don't think they should be difficult to resolve, so as long as botany and zoology stuff can be sourced to general Andes sources as there is no Tutupaca-specific info that I can find), but answering a few questions:

Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 07:56, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
 * You won't see any climbing history - I've looked around and I can't find any reliable sources claiming anything beyond "this person climbed Tutupaca under a certain weather condition", and no claims of being "first" or anything.
 * That Google Books link indicates to me that this "Tutupaca Mining Co." does not necessarily share anything with this mountain other than the name. I also notice that nowhere else does such a "Tutupaca Mining" seem to exist, not even when translating or slighly modifying the name. I'd thus leave it off.
 * The references section is for the citations proper. If I use more than one page from a source - such as the lengthy journal articles - I list them in the sources section, with the references section merely showing the brief harv reference.
 * For the external links, they aren't used as sources because in the first link I am not sure how reliable it is and most of the information they have that isn't in the article is pedantic small details that don't belong even in a featured article.
 * Actioned the citation issues. I've left the journal titles in the same case as the actual journals use, unless sentence case is preferred even then. The GVP link is autoformatted by the citation template so I left it. JoJo Eumerus mobile (talk) 09:06, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Subsequently: Added some material on vegetation. Can't find anything specific for zoology, makes sense since animal life is less conspicuous and unlikely to be discussed in the context of a specific mountain. I see that https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0895981101000335 is now used in the article. Some more time needed for good geothermal power sources. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:45, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Added some more geothermal information, unlike El Tatio there is little even in local news media. I have refrained from using http://siar.regiontacna.gob.pe/ponencias/pdfs/Exposicion%20%20Tacna_Junio.pdf since their math is off. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:10, 8 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Most of this looks taken care of. As a couple quick add-ons:
 * The first appearance of Candarave is now in §Oral tradition, but it's not linked there; that should be, and the corresponding appearance in §Geology and geomorphology delinked. Likewise Yucamane. Is this oral tradition associated with a specific ethnic group (such as, perhaps, the Aymara people)? Basically, anything to make "the people" less vague here, if possible.
 * There are a few hyphens used incorrectly in place of en dashes ("2003-2012" in §Vegetation; "Ilo-Desaguadero" and "Tacna-Tarata-Candarave" in §Hazards).
 * "Predates" in Note f doesn't need to be hyphenated.
 * I'm sad that there really doesn't appear to be any RS climbing history or significant zoology discussion, but after trying to do better myself, I'm willing to concede that you're right and there just aren't sources to go to. It's not a comprehensiveness failure when topics are elided by our sources. Accordingly, moving to conditional support (assuming the last few issues are addressed, which I'm sure they will be). Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 20:13, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Got all the issues fixed, there. The source does not specify "Aymara" or "Quechua", simply "Candarave", probably because it's a location-bound myth rather than an ethnic one. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 06:16, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Source spotcheck
I verified the text against the sources for accuracy and close paraphrasing just before the nomination, and I've been watching the changes since then, so I can testify that the article passes these checks. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 07:46, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Ian Rose (talk) 13:15, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.