Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Ubinas/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) 23:03, 26 September 2018.

Ubinas

 * Nominator(s): Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:42, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

This article is about a volcano in Peru, which has had historical eruptions and is currently considered to be the most active volcano there (not sure if it has been supplanted by Sabancaya at any point). Apparently before 2006-2007 the region was ill-prepared for eruptions at Ubinas and the issues were remedied in a very short time frame. It is close to Huaynaputina and geologically related to it as well; these two volcanoes have had large historical eruptions, including Huaynaputina's 1600 eruption that is the largest in South America during historical time. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:42, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

Support - Went through and did some final copyediting. Convinced this is comprehensive and well-written. Great work.  ceran  thor 18:35, 14 July 2018 (UTC)


 *  Comments support - taking a look now.....notes below....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:27, 22 July 2018 (UTC)


 *  In light of its activity, Ubinas is monitored by the Peruvian geological service INGEMMET, which has published a volcano hazard map for Ubinas as well as a regular volcano activity report. - this sentence is unwieldy and should be split or reworded.


 * .. .a history of usually small- to moderate-sized explosive eruptions as well as larger eruptions such as in 1667,... - the word "usually" is redundant I think...


 * also, if you're covering its activilty in para 2, the "active" in the first sentence makes it a little repetitive and could be removed...?


 * The southern flank is cut by a noticeable notch, which is probably not an eruption vent. - umm, then what is it from?


 * which on the northern and eastern side of Ubinas is covered by volcanic ash and some lava flows - I am confused here - what does the "which" refer here to?


 *  The summit of the volcano is truncated by a - can't we remove the "truncated by"?


 *  The magmas erupted by all three volcanoes appears to originate... - shouldn't this be "magma"?


 * I am confused, you mention,  a period of dormancy lasting until 25,000–14,700 years ago...but then in the next sentence say 5,000-21,000 years ago volcanic activity restarted....


 *  and persistent smoking - doesn't seem to make sense grammatically

These are the most obvious examples. I think there are more - but will give it another read tomorrow. Also, I made these changes, if you can check. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:44, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Got these issues done. Regarding that notch it is kind of implied but not explicitly stated in the source(s) that it is a landslide scar - https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2FBF02599360 says something like "Examination of this features with field glasses and from a study of aerial photographs (but no field studies) suggests to the writer that it is the result of rock avalanches and mud flows rather than an eruptive center. ". I don't think the magmas are exactly identical, hence I preferred the plural form. Your edits look fine to me. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:05, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Ok - need to read and digest....more later... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 22:06, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Any updates? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:03, 28 July 2018 (UTC)


 *  Ubinas is a volcano in the Moquegua Region of southern Peru, close to Huaynaputina and not far from the city of Arequipa. - "close" and "not far" are vague - put the distances in and let the reader decide


 *  Activity at the volcano commenced in the Pleistocene epoch - put approximate time in MYA

Nothing else is really jumping out at me. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:48, 29 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Did rewrite the lead section. Didn't specify which time in the Pleistocene because it is not known for certain. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:26, 29 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Right then - tentative support, but I would not be hugely surprised if other reviewers found prose issues as I find I don't have the best eye for detail. Still, I can't see anything else and it seems pretty complete....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:06, 29 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Ya, I wouldn't surprise me either since my prose skills are only so-so. Which is why I always ask someone else to take a look before sending an article of mine to FAC. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:23, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

Comments from Mike Christie
I'm copyediting as I go; please revert if you disagree with anything. I've finished copyediting; I'll read through again once the above points are addressed. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:20, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Glacial valleys such as the Ubinas and Para valleys, cirques and moraines down to elevations of 4,000 metres (13,000 ft) and at the foot of the volcano indicate that glaciers developed on Ubinas during the last glacial maximum. Is this saying that there are two things that indicate glaciers: 1 - Glacial valleys such as the Ubinas and Para valleys, and 2 - cirques and moraines down to elevations of 4,000 metres (13,000 ft) and at the foot of the volcano? If so, they should be joined by an "and" before "cirques", and I'd suggest a comma before "indicate" to help the reader parse the sentence.
 * Peruvian volcanoes including Ubinas belong to the Central Volcanic Zone of the Andes: all Peruvian volcanoes are in the CVZ? If so I'd put "All" at the front of the sentence.
 * the marginal faults of this graben are the sites of the volcanic vents: why "the" in "the volcanic vents"? It sounds as if you're indicating that these have already been referred to.
 * the average temperature is 11–9 °C (52–48 °F): any reason why you give this with the highest temperature first? There's no requirement not to do this, but it's unusual and I think it would be less jarring if reversed.
 * pajonal which also consists of shrubs and grasses made up by high Andean vegetation: does "made up by" mean "consisting of", or "with additional contributions from"? If the former I'd make it "made up of".
 * Small lakes and waterlogged soil contains wetlands...: suggest "Small lakes and areas of waterlogged soil form wetlands...".
 * Animal species are mainly described for the National Reserve: I think you mean something like "descriptions of animal species in the area mainly give their habitat as the National Reserve, rather than Ubinas specifically". If so I think the phrasing should be clearer.
 * The last activity of Ubinas I generated more than four units of pyroclastic flows, with a total volume of about 1.8 cubic kilometres (0.43 cu mi) and possibly an old caldera before 261,000 ± 10,000 years ago: can we just say "more than four pyroclastic flows", or perhaps "more than four separate pyroclastic flows", or is there some subtlety of meaning that I'm missing? And if the "total volume" is related to the flows, but the old caldera is not, as I think is the case, I'd put a comma before "and possibly".
 * How can a volcanic explosion cause an epidemic?
 * I think I got them all. "The volcanic vents" is deliberate since the statement refers to the aforementioned vents Ubinas, Ticsani and Huaynaputina. I don't think that we can assume that "one unit of pyroclastic flows"="one pyroclastic flow". Good question on the epidemics especially given, maybe in this case it's due to ash intoxication of starvation after ashfalls have destroyed crops. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:11, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:11, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Struck all but one point above. What does "unit of pyroclastic flow" mean, in that case? Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 08:52, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Stratigraphic unit. Added a link to make it clearer. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:01, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Struck. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 09:59, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

A couple more points on another read-through. -- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 09:59, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
 * The section on name and mythology gives two similar words in two indigenous languages, but doesn't assert that either is connected to the name of the volcano. Can we be more direct about this?
 * Is there a good reason to mention the 1600 eruption of Huaynaputina? It seems to be a non sequitur.  If it's because of the connection with Ubinas it should perhaps be repositioned, as the article doesn't mention the connection till the next paragraph.
 * The external links don't look particularly useful -- have you reviewed them?
 * Added a bit of explanation. Huaynaputina's 1600 eruption is mentioned because it was the largest historical volcanic event in Peru and I do write a bit about context. I've removed the broken external links; I was thinking that the other three sources are stuff that a reader would probably be interested in knowing but don't have a place in the prose for WP:RS reasons (or in case of the Volcano Observatory, being too generic). Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 11:17, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
 * How about moving the sentence about Huaynaputina's 1600 eruption to the end of the following paragraph, where it could be combined with the observation that the magma chambers of Ubinas, Huaynaputina and Ticsani are connected, and with the comment about de Espinosa, which is related to that observation? OK on the external links, so I've struck the comment, but the Rivera Porras is really just a book reference, so you might consider moving it to a "Further reading" section instead, and making it a cite book with a link to this page. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 11:56, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I think I got these changes. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 12:16, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

Support. Looks good now. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 16:42, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

Image review


 * File:Peru_physical_map.svg: what is the source of the data presented? Nikkimaria (talk) 18:25, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I am guessing from the "NASA Shuttle Radar Topography Mission", similar to File:Reserva Nacional de Paracas topographic map-es.png. However the uploader has been inactive for two years, do you think an image replacement is warranted? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 18:39, 18 August 2018 (UTC)


 * It's fine to keep if you can find a supporting source, otherwise yes, replace. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:53, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I'll need help for this - it looks like the infobox has that map hardcoded. Off to WP:HD... Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:54, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
 * OK, got it removed now. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:51, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
 * It seems like someone does not agree. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 06:00, 20 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Any idea why? Nikkimaria (talk) 11:31, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I've pinged the user to see as they didn't give an edit summary. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:30, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Didn't get any response, so removed the map again per WP:IUP. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:55, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I see that it was added back again without explanation, and they haven't responded to a question on their talk page. They haven't edited this weekened, though. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:30, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I've removed it, with an edit summary link to here. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:33, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Ridiculous, every article that is now FA or GA has a map, why the sudden tight ass approach here? I oppose the FAC without a proper topographic map. Tisquesusa (talk) 05:49, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
 * , are you saying that this map meets the image policy, despite Nikkimaria's comments above? Or are you saying that another map could be found instead? Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 10:25, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Maps are an essential part of geographic articles and for mountains specifically we use topographic maps everywhere. I have read, reviewed, edited, promoted and linked many of 's excellent volcano articles and all have maps. This topographic map clearly is not "public domain", as all our other topographic maps are not and are widely used in infoboxes; that means the original uploader simply clicked the wrong license and it is just a matter of changing the license to something acceptable for FA standards. On top of that, the map is an .svg file with overlays, so obviously made by the user him/herself, probably in Inkscape. The only difference with the other topographic maps of Bolivia and Chile, used in the other volcano articles, is the legend, which is a good addition anyway. The problem lies also in the location map template, that always should link to a map that can be used everywhere on Wikipedia, including FA and GA articles, so with a proper license. No map for a FA mountain article is unacceptable to me (hence my oppose to FA until the map is included) and the solution is quite simple. Tisquesusa (talk) 17:37, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Coming back to this as it's been inactive for a while. The problem isn't quite the template, but rather the topographic information - how does it know what a certain area is over 4000m high, for instance? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:05, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Option 1
 * Greyscale, so you would have to convert to color (unless you are happy with grey scale).
 * Option 2
 * Be smarter than me and figure it out. If I have time, I will try harder to figure out it. Seems that is where the Shuttle data is stored now.  Kees08  (Talk)   06:52, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Coordinator comment: Unless I've missed it somewhere, we still need a source review. This can be requested at the top of WT:FAC. Sarastro (talk) 10:15, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Request's already there and here. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 10:22, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Well, seems like someone else will have to do the source review then. And summoning to see if they can resolve the image source problem that Nikkimaria highlighted. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:00, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Asking around if someone has time for a source review as I don't know which people to ask. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:05, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
 * It seems like according to the uploader the topographical information comes from the SRTM and would thus be uncopyrighted. Would it be enough to edit File:Peru physical map.svg so that it says "topographical information from the Shuttle Radar Topography Mission" to satisfy copyright/source concerns? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:33, 9 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Sounds good. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:06, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
 * And done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 18:16, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

Comments by Dudley

 * Geography. It would be interesting to know how near the Equator Ubinas is.
 * "a lava flow was emplaced inside the crater" Is there a link which would explain 'emplace'?
 * "Peruvian volcanoes include both stratovolcanoes, which are typically active for less than 500,000 years, long-lived clusters of lava domes[2] and monogenetic volcanic fields. " "both" means two but you list three types.
 * "The formation of their magmas is caused by the dehydration of the down-going slab and the melting of the mantle; the magmas often undergo fractional crystallization and absorb crustal material.[38]" I think this sentence belongs in the first paragraph of 'Geology'.
 * "This collapse took place early in the history of the volcano" As you have not yet discussed the history I think you should indicate the period.
 * "The volcanic rocks define a potassium-rich calc-alkaline suite." What does "define" mean here?
 * "Assimilation of crustal material and fractional crystallization are involved in the genesis of this magma suite." You have said this above.
 * fumarolic-seismic. Fumarole should be linked here, not below.
 * "In addition, the 1600 Huaynaputina eruption was at first localized in Ubinas before its actual vent was identified." I would say "was first thought to be at Ubinas" - "localized in" sounds odd to me.
 * A good article. These points are minor. Dudley Miles (talk) 17:53, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Sure that the equator thing is of common interest? As for "emplace" I think that "to place in" is a clear enough connection. "Both" I think is also used for when there are three rather than two discussion scopes. Regarding "Assimilation of crustal material and fractional crystallization are involved in the genesis of this magma suite" it's explained again because the earlier mention is qualified as "often". Actioned the other things. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:19, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Sorry to butt in, but I agree with Dudley re "both"; there may be a style guide somewhere that says it's OK to use for three, but it's jarring for many English readers and I think it would be best to change it. "Emplace" is technical jargon; perhaps I've read too many volcano articles now, because I pass right over it, but I recall that this (and "edifice") both sounded odd to me when I first read them.  I don't think there's a good link for it, unfortunately, and I do think it's interpretable from the etymology, but it's jargon. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 00:16, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Whe, no big. I've pulled "both" and "emplaced", fixed a maintenance tag added in the meantime. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 06:56, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

Coordinator note: do you have more to add here? Also, just as a procedural point, your oppose would not be taken into consideration when considering promotion for this article as it is not actionable by the nominator and is not related to the FA Criteria. However, I would like that issue cleared up before we promote if at all possible. Sarastro (talk) 19:42, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
 * There are almost 1900 pages at Wikipedia using this map. This is a bigger issue than just this FAC. The license simply needs to be changed; topographic maps are not "public domain", we use them all the time in FA and GA articles. The Russian user who uploaded this particular topographic map of Peru has uploaded a lot of diagrams, maps and other files. And apparently that is done more often using the "public domain" license. It shows we should assume good faith that (s)he made this map (clear from the .svg file anyway) him/herself and the license simply needs to be updated. Tisquesusa (talk) 20:17, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I appreciate that, which is why the issue does not relate to whether this article meets the FA criteria; it is an issue with the map itself, and the nominator cannot address that. It is not an FA issue, so cannot affect whether the article is promoted or not. Sarastro (talk) 20:51, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

Comments from Jens Lallensack
Sorry for the late review. I feel the article is on a good way, but still has some way to go.
 * Title picture: which side of the volcano is shown?
 * I dunno, paging . Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:34, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
 * The historian and geographer Mariano Felipe Paz Soldán relates the name Ubinas to two terms in two different languages. – But what does this mean? Why two terms, are these two separate hypothesis where the name could have originated from, or does he think the name evolved from both names?
 * Source does not specify this. I am guessing they know these languages and concluded that either language may be the source of the name. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:34, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
 * In the indigenous language Quechua, uina means "to stuff", "to fill", and uiña is translated as "to grow", "to increase". – Now you are mentioning two words for the first language? There is no explanation, and I'm not sure how to interpret this. Again two alternative possibilities where the name could have originated from?
 * I am guessing so, as with before the source does not really detail the thought process. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:34, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
 * The volcano is also known as Uvillas or Uvinas. – Where are those names used; are these English names or local ones?
 * That's from here which offers little detail. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:34, 14 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Do you know the first written account of the volcano? Anything on early research history?
 * There is a little info dispersed through the article. The problem with these South American volcanoes is that their history is usually very poorly documented so there is not much info on such details. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:34, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
 * The southern flank is cut by a noticeable notch, which is probably not an eruption vent. – When reading this, one necessarily will ask "from what is it then?". I now see that the second reviewer asked the same question, but it seems to be still unresolved.
 * Specified this a bit. I think that this notch was created by the collapse discussed in the section titled "collapse" but irritatingly none of the source explicitly says so. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:34, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
 * The upper sector of the volcano has a weathered appearance. – Could you be more specific? I first thought you might mean the rugged appearance of the upper margin of the caldera, but then I noticed that the top layers are partly eroded, is this what you mean?
 * Specified this too. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:34, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
 * The Ubinas and Para valleys border the volcano[19] in its southeastern sector; the difference in elevation between these and the plateau is about 2 kilometres (1.2 mi) – I thought the volcano stands atop the plateau; how can the valleys border the volcano if they are located two km below the plateau? It would be great if the description of the geography could be improved so that one gets a better idea.
 * That's a question that the sources also left a little unclear. Seems like the volcano formed on top of the plateau close to its margin, so that its eastern and southern flanks border the valleys. I did an edit; is it now clearer. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:34, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
 * The formation of the magma erupted by the volcanoes is caused by the dehydration of the down-going slab and the melting of the mantle – This could be more precise. I don't think that the dehydration itself is forming the magma, it is the increased water content in the continental crust above that causes it. Furthermore, "The formation of magma is caused by the melting of the mantle" seems not to tell much. The causalities have to be made clearer.
 * Well, it looks like text-source integrity got lost during the editing process; I've rewritten it, does it sound too similar to the source text It has long been accepted that the calc-alkaline magmas of the CVZ result from partial melting of the mantle wedge metasomatized by fluids derived from the dehydration of the subducted oceanic crust. The partial melting is often followed by crustal contamination during the differentiation now? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:34, 14 September 2018 (UTC)


 * While reading the well-made description of the characteristics of the volcano, I was constantly wondering how it compares to other Peruvian volcanoes. Is it typical? Which features are unique or at least rare?
 * I don't think that anyone has made an explicit comparison to the other volcanoes; would it help to have some of the other volcanoes explained a little, such as "Ticsani is a cluster of lava domes". Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:34, 14 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Just a note: While reading, I was somehow disrupted by the references within sentences (often thought I was at the end of the sentence already when I was not). I see the benefits of the precise referencing and I am not demanding to change them, just want to add that there are some disadvantages associated with it.
 * Oh, how I would love if the references could become a little smaller. Or if we didn't need page numbers... Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:34, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Ubinas, Ticsani and Huaynaputina[35] form a group of volcanoes that extend in north-south direction[1] behind the main volcanic arc – What is the "main volcanic arc"? Not mentioned anywhere else, and not linked. Should be introduced first. Also: does "behind" mean "east of"? So, in conclusion, it means these volcanoes are not part of the main arc?
 * That's rewritten. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:34, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
 * a common geochemical and tectonic signature, the latter of which is reflected by the existence of a graben – An extremely convoluted, highly abstract and difficult to understand wording, and even after thinking about it I'm not sure what this wants to tell me. I would try to formulate as simple as possible. From my understanding, would't it be the crustal thinning due to extension forces which locally lowered pressures, allowing for the formation of the magma chamber? And these faults extending from the graben, wouldn't those be the pathways the magma would take to reach the surface?
 * Wow. No idea how I left that sentence in. I've rewritten it a bit, is it now clearer? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:34, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
 * probably owing to a change in the magma supply regime from steady before 25,000 years ago to more irregular after that time[54] with a generally higher magma supply – Had to read several times before I was able to make sense of it. Does it mean that the magma supply used to be steady but low, but not is irregular but more voluminous?
 * Rewritten; better now? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:34, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
 * It was later cut on its southern side by a debris avalanche[47] that probably occurred over 376,000 years ago – there is one debris avalance mentioned before that occured 360,000 years ago; are these two the same? How many separate avalanches are mentioned in the article? I'm a bit confused about this.
 * I think it is; problem is that apparently none of the sources calls the "Notch" the "collapse scar". Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:34, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
 * But if it is, you have two slightly different dates for one and the same collapse in separate parts of the article? --Jens Lallensack (talk) 12:52, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Removed the first date mention as it was imprecise anyhow. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 13:16, 15 September 2018 (UTC)


 * 2006–2007 eruption – in the list above this mention you give "2006–2009" as time frame.
 * Mostly because that was the key episode
 * Despite its record of activity, Ubinas was essentially unmonitored before the 2006 event – Is this the reason why only the events since 2006 are described in detail, and not the older ones?
 * Yes. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:34, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
 * You are frequently mentioning villages. and other towns in the area include Anascapa, Escacha, Huarina, Huatahua, Sacuaya, San Miguel and Tonohaya.[30] In total about 5,000 people live within 12 kilometres (7.5 mi) from the volcano.[12] – This sounds like if the mentioned towns are located within the 12 kilometers from the volcano. But if they only total 5,000 people, are they really towns or are they villages?
 * I've reformatted your comment. The source in Spanish says poblados which indeed translates as "village", so changed. Rectified some town/village confusion while remedying the problem below. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:34, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
 * You frequently mention villages without giving their names. I often wondered if the described village was the same mentioned previously, or a different one. I would give the names of the villages.
 * Now they have names. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:34, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Animal species have been described mainly in the context of the National Reserve; they include various birds and camelids. – "Various camelids" is a bit too much, it can be at most three different species (those that exist in South America). Rather, I would mention some characteristic species of high ecological value or something more helpful.
 * I've written out the four species (it's only so many). Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:34, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
 * The vegetation descriptions seems a bit poor. You name different vegetation zones, but each time only states that they "consist of shrubs and grasses". Maybe name the dominant species.
 * Gave this an expansion. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:34, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
 * One more point later. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 15:05, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks anyway; this FAC isn't exactly overflowing with comments. I'll see to get these issues addressed. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:30, 14 September 2018 (UTC)


 * The infobox contains two times the word "Etymology" without giving an etymology, and the link is not working. I would just remove.
 * Agreed, it's gone.
 * I am also wondering if the structure is optimal. I didn't had the feeling that there was a good common threat; instead, information appears to be somewhat dispersed and at places where I would not have expected it. Details below:
 * I'm not sure why "collapses" are within the geology section but the Fumarolic and geothermal system is not.
 * This is a structure I use for volcano articles since "fumaroles" are more like ongoing eruptive activity. I can see why this header might fit under "Geology" better as I did on Lascar (volcano); what do other people think? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:45, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm also not sure if the "Eruptive history" section is the right place for discussing the two phases in which the volcano formed; I would have expected this in the geology section.
 * I think that the geology section is for what the volcano is, while the history one is about how did it form. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:45, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
 * The subsections in "Eruptive history" seem not optimal. They start from "Historical" (the only section which I imho really fits under this heading), but then are followed by "other patterns of activities", which are not about the eruptions at all.
 * I've split one of them off; as for the "other patterns of activities" would it work when merged into the "historical" section without being a subsection? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:45, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I also don't understand why fumaroles have to be discussed in two separate sections "Other patterns of activities", "Fumarolic and geothermal systems". --Jens Lallensack (talk) 15:47, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I think I got most issues, commented on others, need additional comments on a few. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:45, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the quick fixes, I will have a second read tomorrow! --Jens Lallensack (talk) 18:29, 14 September 2018 (UTC)


 * You mentioned that sources are too scarce to address some obvious questions. I don't have a good overview, but I feel that a bit of more rigorous literature research would have brought up the one or other additional fact. For example, this paper on the Volcano, which is not cited yet in the article, seems to contain some information about geography you were unsure about. Also, in case you didn't already, I would recommend looking for some encyclopedia-style overview books on the topic; if there is more on names and research history, for example, I would expect it in such sources. In a brief search I hit for example "Volcanoes of the central Andes" from Shanaka L. DeSilva, Peter W. Francis (1991), which seems promising. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 22:45, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Actually, I did come across that first paper when writing the article. It seemed to me though that all information was already in the article, and those which wasn't were little technical details that are not necessarily necessary for the article. As for the book source, I distinctly remember reading it in a library and not seeing much information on etymology and research history; but I'll ask again. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:16, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Just found it in our bib (check you Email), does not contain anything in addition, and after some searching I have to agree with you about the sources. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 12:12, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Re: The seismic information (mentioned in the aforementioned email). I think I came across it when writing the article and I think I decided that it was probably too technical to be worth including. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 12:42, 15 September 2018 (UTC)


 * I still think the geography section is too quick in describing the geographic location of the volcano, and after one sentence directly goes into geomorphology. I would already mention the neighboring volcanoes, and which group it belongs to. I know this info is given in "shared magma chamber", but that is not the place one would look for it.
 * While reading, I didn't get the idea that the geology section would only describe how the volcano is today. I'm not sure if this makes sense, as what you see today is the result of history. In the "collapses" section (which is somewhat awkwardly placed in the geology) you also talk about things that happened in the past. I would find it much more logical if the genesis of the volcano would directly follow the regional setting and magma chamber sections. Furthermore, does it really make sense to discuss the composition before the formation of the volcano? I am sure these two phases would show very different compositions, so wouldn't it make sense to be able to mention them in the composition section?
 * I think that the given information about the formation of the volcano is quite short. This is of central importance, and well-described by Thouret et al. 2005.
 * The structure of the "Eruptive history" still is not very logic. It only contains two subsections: "Historical" and "Other patterns of activity". What is the "other" referring to? The "Eruptive history", one would assume. But when it does not belong to the "Eruptive history", it should not be in that section. Just to illustrate the logical problem that I see. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 12:46, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
 * In order:
 * I am inclined to disagree; "geography" here really is little more than "the volcano is there" so that section will always be short. Would adding a sentence about Huaynaputina and Ticsani being close by make sense?
 * I agree perhaps on the collapses section, the minor issue I have is that it would need to be split into two fairly short paragraphs if it were to be moved down to "eruption history". "Composition" is part of "geology" in my opinion. For what it's worth, the sectioning here and on other articles I wrote is based off two other featured articles, Calabozos and Cerro Azul (Chile volcano).
 * I think that stratigraphy details (which is what much of Thouret et al. 2005 is) are a bit too detailed for a Wikipedia article.
 * I've yanked that section.
 * Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 13:16, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
 * The two phases in which the volcano formed have to be discussed within or prior to the composition section, otherwise it is just contradictory imo. I'm not sure about the optimal structure, but I think something has to be done, currently it is just not optimal. The other featured articles you mention do a somewhat better job in my opinion regarding the structure. The section headings are more general, information is in the spot you would search for it (e.g., the geography part always first describes to which volcanic arc and so on the thing belongs), and I have the feeling that there is a logical built-up of information, and the arrangement of the section is more logical and less convoluted. In my opinion, these issues are critical. While I understand that you might think otherwise, I cannot support this nomination. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 14:01, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Under the assumption that the explanation of the volcanic arc is better suited to geography. I've moved it up to match it with Calabozos. That leaves the "collapses" section as the only problem child. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 14:30, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Pinging a few users who previously commented to see if you have comments on Jens Lallensack's comments and my replies to them. And to see if someone can do a source review. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 18:55, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
 * , I'm not seeing the sequencing problem you describe. I've just read through the article again.  The geography section covers the appearance of the volcano, the geology section covers the general geological processes in the area, with specific attention to the local setting, and the eruptive history is the detailed history of exactly what has been discovered about Ubinas's eruptions.  If I follow your logic, you're suggesting that since the eruptive history contributes to the physical appearance, it is out of sequence.  I don't think so: the eruptive history section should be last, because it's the most detailed and the reader benefits from having the geological and geographical context when they read it.  It does make reference to the physical appearance of Ubinas but that's unavoidable. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 21:57, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
 * , I should have been clearer. My concern is not about the eruptions sections in its entirety, but on the part on the formation of the volcano as we see it today: The volcano developed in two phases, Ubinas I and Ubinas II. In my opinion, this information is coming far too late (there is not even a mention in the lead), but is of fundamental importance. In fact, I argue that you need this information to comprehend both the topography and the composition of the volcano. For example, because of these two phases, the lower part (Ubinas I) has a flat slope and the upper part (Ubinas II) a steep slope. The article does not make this link between the topography and these two phases; this important information is not given. Same for the composition: Rocks on Ubinas have compositions ranging from basaltic andesite to rhyolite, with andesite and dacite being the dominant components of the volcano. – This should be discussed in the context of the two phases, because each phase leads to a different compositions. "Andesite to Rhyolite" covers much of the spectrum that is expected for volcanic rocks, this is like saying "The volcano contains all kinds of volcanic rocks". The information content would be much higher if we would point out which parts of the volcano show which composition. For example, why not mention that the summit cone (part of Ubinas II) is composed of andesite and dacite flows? If I would climb this volcano, I would be very interested in this kind of information. Same for the dome in the center. Currently, the reader of the "composition" section gets the impression that the composition would be quite homogenous or gradually shifting towards the top, which I think is quite misleading. Furthermore, I was asking for a bit more content on these phases, there is plenty of interesting stuff here that can be interesting for lay readers as well; I have the impression the article is not as comprehensive as it should be on these things. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 15:10, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
 * And the more I think of it, I consider these issues important enough to oppose for the time being (although I may be quick to change to support if this would be addressed in some way). --Jens Lallensack (talk) 15:18, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Ah, the Ubinas I and Ubinas II thing. Didn't realize that it was mentioned too late. Added a bit about this and some more info also from 10.1007/s00445-004-0396-0. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:00, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
 * , as the most active volcano of Peru, I think the regional setting needs a bit more expansion and maybe a link to a article/chapter within a bigger one. Also the subchapters for "basement", "composition" and "collapses" are too short to be in separate subchapters, I would combine them into 1, maximum 2. Tisquesusa (talk) 18:46, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I've merged some of these subsections. I've been looking for material to write a bit of a chronology with (similar to the "Through K-Ar dating, geologist Robert Edward Drake " in Calabozos) but my brain is jacking up. I'll try this tomorrow. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:59, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
 * OK, I've added a summary of volcanic history of southern Peru. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 14:25, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Ok, much better, I give my support now. But I would recommend that you, in the lead and the geography section, clearly state that Ubinas I and II are not only different parts of the volcano, but represent different stages of development, just to increase comprehensibility (without this info, I fear that readers might be irritated). --Jens Lallensack (talk) 20:42, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure it would irritate a lay reader, but it certainly would help clarify and would not be redundant in a relatively complex topic. I have not formally commented but have been keeping tabs on your comments, and wanted to thank you, Jens Lallensack, for being so timely with your responses to Jo-Jo. And Jo-Jo Eumerus, you should also be commended for your perseverance through such a long FAC process.  ceran  thor 14:33, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Although to be fair, I generally don't review other people's work much. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:15, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

Comments by Kees08
Not planning on doing a full review, but you may want to use the trans-title field for the non-English sources.  Kees08  (Talk)   14:45, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Got that one as well. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:59, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Tony1

 * "Activity at the volcano began in the Pleistocene epoch, and led, in two phases, to the growth of the current mountain."—possibly this, but do I understand it correctly? "Activity at the volcano began in the Pleistocene epoch, and led to the growth of the current mountain in two phases."
 * "Among the recent eruptions is the 2006–2007 event, which produced eruption columns and led to ash fall in the region, resulting in health issues and evacuations. During the most recent activity, from 2013 to 2017, a lava flow was erupted inside the crater, and further ash falls led to renewed evacuations of surrounding towns." "is", then "produced"? I'd use past tense. It might be ok, as you do later, to use present in reporting publication findings. "Was erupted"—no.
 * "which has published a volcano hazard map for Ubinas and also publishes regular volcano activity reports"—why not trim? "which has published a volcano hazard map for Ubinas and regular volcano activity reports".
 * Caption: "Ubinas caldera seen from above, with the crater and the notch in the southern rim clearly visible". Remove one word (contextually redundant).
 * "down to elevations of 4,000 metres"—do you need "elevations of"?
 * Simplify the grammar? "There are other volcanic cones in the region, all heavily eroded by past glaciations." -> "Tther volcanic cones in the region have all been heavily eroded by past glaciations." ... or all show heavy erosiong by.
 * " A couple of lava domes crop out around the volcano"—two, please, in formal text.
 * Why not declutter by inverting? "with a 400-metre (1,300 ft) wide and 300-metre (980 ft) deep, triangle-shaped crater" -> "with a triangle-shaped crater 400 metres (1,300 ft) wide and 300 metres (980 ft) deep."
 * "Lake Piscococha is located on the western foot of the volcano" – simpler somehow, with contextual redundancy dumpted? "Lake Piscococha is on the volcano's western foot"
 * "within". Won't "in" do?
 * This is a bombsite: "from the Toquepala arc 91-c. 45 million years ago over the Andahuaylas-Anta c. 45-30 million years ago, the Huaylillas 24-10 million years ago, the two Barroso arcs 10-1 million years ago to the recent arc in the last one million years". MOS breaches aplenty. I would dump the typography from the range with the cluttered "c.": from 91 million to c. 45 million ...". Is it 10 to 1 million? No. Elseewhere, DO ushttps://www.google.com/webmasters/tools/dashboard?hl=en&siteUrl=http://xyzcollectibles.com/e typography, but NOT a hyphen: "7 to 9 centimetres per year (2.8 to 3.5 in/year)". Look up WP:MOSDASH.
 * "A depression, whose margin is cut by landslide scars, cuts into the basement southeast of Ubinas and is occupied by the Ubinas valley." People or human activity "occupies". Not natural features.
 * "especially" – comma before.
 * No, hyphenated "thick" needed too. But invert, and use en dashes. "20-to-40-metre (66 to 131 ft) thick lava flows". Fix all ranges.
 * Consistent tense, please: "has been dated to have started between 25,000 and 14,700 years ago and led"


 * "Farther up between 4,200 to 4,700 metres (13,800 to 15,400 ft) lies a vegetation form called pajonal which consists of creeping plants, grasses and shrubs made up of high Andean vegetation"—dashes. Nest the "between ... )" within commas. Comma before "which". The plants, grasses etc ARE the vegetation, no?
 * "Small lakes and areas of waterlogged soil form wetlands called bofedales in which aquatic plants and rosette-forming plants grow; both the bofedales and the pajonal also feature cushion plants." Comma? Got links to bof. and paj.? Remove both of the "the"s.

Why has this been here for more than nine weeks? And why have these matters not been cleaned up already? Should have been withdrawn and fixed early on, but now, once cleaned up, the prose might be ok for FA, I suppose. I haven't scrutinised the bottom much. Tony (talk)  04:23, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Did get these fixes in. I think the nine weeks is because of the image and source review issue. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:39, 19 September 2018 (UTC)


 * "The summit of the volcano is a 1.4-kilometre (0.87 mi) wide and 150-metre (490 ft) deep elliptical caldera[1] formed by collapses of the summit and explosive eruptions." Simplify? "The summit of the volcano is an elliptical caldera 1.4 kilometres (0.87 mi) wide and 150 metres (490 ft) deep, formed by ...".
 * "91–c. 45 million years ago"—two things wrong. MOS says million twice, so it doesn't refer to the year 1927. Probably a spaced dash is better here, givent he speces within the component(s).
 * Did the latter, but I am not sure what MOS says million twice, so it doesn't refer to the year 1927. is supposed to say. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:55, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
 * north-south direction". Wrong typography.
 * "Rocks on Ubinas have compositions ranging from basaltic andesite to rhyolite, with andesite and dacite being the dominant components of the volcano." This is ungainly. "Andesite and dacite are the dominant components of the volcano, though its rocks have compositions ranging from basaltic andesite to rhyolite." ... but even that's not good: andesite is mentioned twice. Not logical.
 * Basaltic andesite does not have the same meaning as andesite and there is no good synonym, so I don't think that can be fixed. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:55, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Remove "being", then. Tony (talk)  09:18, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Already gone. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:22, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
 * "Volcanically-induced"—see MOSHYPHEN.
 * "Subsequently volcanic activity decreased again until late 2009[72] and consisted of degassing and of Vulcanian eruptions." I'm still not happy with the way you sometimes join propositions into sentences. "And" is overused for this purpose. And do you need both subsequently and again? "Volcanic activity—degassing and Vulcanian eruptions—decreased until late 2009[72]." Unsure, but it needs to be clearer.
 * "1,000,000 United States dollars" ... "US1M"?
 * I'd prefer to have this spelled out as we cannot assume that readers in this non-US centric article will know the meaning of "US1M", I believe. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:55, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
 * At least use "US", then. Tony (talk)  09:18, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
 * That's done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:22, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
 * "was pending as of 2010"—that's eight years ago. Do we know yet?
 * "at lower elevations temperatures can exceed 18 °C (64 °F) during daytime but night frosts are still possible." Probably a comma.
 * Human use: it's a very slender section. No big deal, I suppose.
 * Human use: it's a very slender section. No big deal, I suppose.

It's not wonderful writing, but it's a pass from me at this late stage. You might consider doing a few of my tutorials before your next nomination. Tony (talk)  06:23, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I got these issues, minus a few remarked upon above. And yeah, I'll see these tutorials, probably today or tomorrow, before sending anything more here (next article would be Wōdejebato for what it's worth). Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:55, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

Source review by Mike Christie
Sources all look to be high quality. I have already checked a couple of sources against the text in my earlier review, and I don't think it's necessary to do more spotchecks. External links are all fine. I'm having trouble finding much to comment on: That's everything I can see. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:04, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
 * The PDF by Cruz et al. seems to be a bulletin that could be cited to the dead tree version: "Boletín de la Sociedad Geológica del Perú, v.103 (2009), p.265-281." appears on that page. Not a requirement to change this, but you could switch to that and keep the link you have.
 * Similarly for the Parodi.
 * The further reading link looks a little odd, with the repetition of the University name. The last parameter is "series" but you have more than one kind of data there; what's intended?
 * Got these issues; "series" was intended to explain what the book is (a thesis) I think it does now. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:55, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

Ian Rose (talk) 23:03, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.