Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Licancabur/1

Licancabur

 * • [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Good_article_reassessment/Licancabur/1&action=watch Watch article reassessment page] • Most recent review
 * Result: Per Kusma, no reason to delist; GAR is not peer review. &#126;~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 23:31, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

I just did a moderate expansion/rewrite on the article in order to prepare it for FAC, which thus ended up quite distinct from the older version. I'd like to have someone check if it still meets the GA criteria. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:15, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
 * The "Display links to disambiguation pages in orange" gadget in your preferences will show you numerous links which need to be specified. I would suggest having a look at links more broadly: e.g. he Inka/Inca (the former spelling is used more often in article, but the latter seems to be preferred generally on-wiki) are mentioned in the first section but are not mentioned until the archaeology section. You have some citation issues: #1 is not defined, while Ceruti 2012 requires a journal name.
 * More relevant to the GA criteria: adherence to WP:LEAD appears to be spotty—quite a lot of the article is not adequately summarized by the lead. You may also take a look towards copyediting, perhaps through WP:GOCE: sentences such as "Politically, it is located in the Antofagasta Region of Chile and the Potosí Department of Bolivia; the Treaty of Valparaiso establishes the border between Bolivia and Chile as passing over the mountain" could be trimmed of duplication, while "The slopes of the mountain are notably unstable; anecdotally, the noise can be heard all around the mountain" is a slight non-sequitur, as the connection between the instability and noise has not been directly made (and indeed, being mentioned only in Rudolph 1955, could it really be described as "notable"?)
 * However, these are minor issues which I know well arise after a complete rewrite; I have no doubt that the article meets the GA criteria. &#126;~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 17:09, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Took care of some issues. In my experience, GOCE is not really the right place for pre-FAC copyedits; I think I'll ask, when they have time. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:54, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

Just a few general comments:
 * Try to avoid "5 – −25 °C (41 – −13 °F), decreasing to −25 – −40 °C (−13 – −40 °F)", it is quite unpleasant to look at and MOS:RANGE recommends not to do it.
 * Done, is it better now. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:11, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
 * "The summit at 5,916 metres (19,409 ft) elevation[26][c] is capped by a summit crater is 500 metres (1,600 ft)[19]-400 metres (1,300 ft) wide summit crater that lacks large flat areas" apart from the obvious editing debris grammar problem, perhaps better to untangle this into several sentences ("The elevation of the summit is 5916 metres. It is capped by summit crater with a diameter of 400–500 metres and does not have any large flat areas").
 * Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:11, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Images: perhaps try to improve captions? Licancabur Lake is the black blob in the centre? The Laguna Verde photo is amazing, perhaps tell us in the caption that this is at 4000+m elevation?
 * Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:11, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Fauna: list of animals looks a bit random; are any of these particularly important / rare / only occurring at the mountain?
 * It's essentially these species which have their names listed out in sources. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:11, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Are the Inka people you link to different from the Inca?
 * No. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:11, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
 * What does "the mountains cover each other during the equinoxes" mean?
 * Removed. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:11, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

Overall it looks like it could do with some copyediting and some work on the lead, but no reason to delist. —Kusma (talk) 21:28, 25 March 2024 (UTC)