Wikipedia:Peer review/Aguilera (volcano)/archive1

Aguilera (volcano)


I've listed this article for peer review because I wanted to bring it to GA status but for some reason it seems to me like it's a bit borderline.

Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:41, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Comments from Thebiguglyalien
Three things stand out after my reading:
 * The article could use some reorganization. In some places it feels more like a list of facts without any real flow to it.
 * As far as coverage goes, what stands out is the history of its study or other human interaction. I see its discovery and the first climbing, but it would be worthwhile to see if there's any more human activity relating to the volcano.
 * Unfortunately, as rather typical for volcanoes there, there isn't much known beyond the ash layers. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:31, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
 * There's a lot of technical jargon in the article. Technical detail isn't a bad thing, but when possible it should be written in a way that makes it understandable to the layman.

Lead:
 * e. 2546 m/8353 ft. – Could we use Template:Abbr on the "e."? It took me a second to figure out what it was saying. Alternatively, it could just be stated in prose.
 * The MOS:FIRSTSENTENCE should be as basic as possible. I'd end the sentence at "is a stratovolcano in southern Chile".
 * but the first ascent only occurred in 2014, making it the last unclimbed major Andean volcano. – This is a separate idea from its identification and should probably be in its own sentence. Also, "last major Andean volcano to be climbed" (or something similar) is clearer than "last unclimbed major Andean volcano".
 * When the new paragraph starts, it's better not to use a pronoun. "Aguilera is located west" or even "The volcano is located west" would be better than "It is located west".

Geography and geomorphology:
 * The ordering in this section looks random. I would expect the most basic details (type of volcano, country, height, basic structure, etc) to be in the first paragraph, and then the finer details in the following paragraphs.
 * No, I think that mixing different aspects like that isn't good writing. I tend to keep a flow from topic to another, not jumping back. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:31, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
 * west of the city of Calafate, northwest of Peel Fjord and within the commune of Natales – The place that it is in should be given priority, then the places that it's around.
 * Given how thinly inhabited the region is, I'd rather keep the city first. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:31, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
 * the volcanoes are poorly mapped, difficult to access and the weather conditions hostile – Parallelism (grammar)
 * Where does the name Aguilera come from?
 * No idea. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:31, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
 * but its volcanic nature – This isn't a contradiction, so "but" should be "and".
 * There's a lot of info here about the Austral Volcanic Zone, which might be undue. We only need enough to understand it in the context of Aguilera.
 * It's confusing that three different measurements are given for its height. The article should distinguish between base-to-summit and altitude, and it should explain the 2545/2546 measurements.
 * Done as far as it can be done; unexplained disagreements about height are common. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:31, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

Geology:
 * the Antarctic Plate subducts – Having two links together like this makes it seem like you're referring to a single thing called the "Antarctic Plate subducts".
 * The basement below Aguilera – Is "basement" a commonly understood term in this context? As a non-expert in this subject, I've never heard the term before.
 * Linked. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:31, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
 * and the Southern Volcanic Zone of the Andes, the Austral Volcanic Zone was once considered – This looks like it should be the start of a new sentence.
 * The first paragraph under Composition has as many technical words as non-technical. I realize that this is largely inevitable, but if anything here can be simplified without losing information, it should be.

Climate and vegetation:
 * Could more be said about the vegetation? I didn't even know those plants were "trees or shrubs" until I clicked on the links.
 * This would be a good place to add information about the fauna if any exists. If none exists, that would also be a relevant detail.

Eruption history:
 * This section especially feels like a list of disparate events. I can't say what the "correct" way to organize this would be, but I'm still a little confused after reading it. It might help if this section "slowed down" a little bit to walk the reader through the volcano's history. I'm afraid I can't be much more helpful than that; this might be an area where another pair of eyes knowledgeable about the topic area would help.
 * What is an A1 eruption? I Googled the term, and this article was the 5th result, which leads me to believe it's not a common term.
 * The "A1 eruption" is the eruption discussed in this paragraph. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:31, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

References:
 * I notice the references are dominated by Charles Stern and Rolf Kilian. It's not enough to be a real concern and no action is needed in my opinion, but it's something to keep in mind. Having more diverse sources is generally better.

, these are the points that I would bring up in a GA review. Thebiguglyalien ( talk ) 19:46, 17 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I think the issue here is that this volcano is just very poorly known in general. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:31, 18 February 2024 (UTC)