Talk:Lastarria

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Lastarria article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Lastarria has been listed as one of the Geography and places good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Review: February 25, 2017. (Reviewed version).

This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Argentina Low‑importance

	Argentina portal This article is part of WikiProject Argentina, an attempt to expand, improve and standardise the content and structure of articles related to Argentine Geography. If you would like to participate, you can improve Lastarria, or sign up and contribute to a wider array of articles like those on our to do list.ArgentinaWikipedia:WikiProject ArgentinaTemplate:WikiProject ArgentinaArgentine articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Chile

	Chile portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Chile, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Chile on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChileWikipedia:WikiProject ChileTemplate:WikiProject ChileChile articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Volcanoes Low‑importance

	Volcanoes portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Volcanoes, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of volcanoes, volcanology, igneous petrology, and related subjects on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.VolcanoesWikipedia:WikiProject VolcanoesTemplate:WikiProject VolcanoesWikiProject Volcanoes articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Mountains Low‑importance

	Mountains portal This article is part of WikiProject Mountains, a project to systematically present information on mountains. If you would like to participate, you can choose to edit the article attached to this page (see Contributing FAQ for more information), or visit the project page where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.MountainsWikipedia:WikiProject MountainsTemplate:WikiProject MountainsMountain articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Geography Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Geography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of geography on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.GeographyWikipedia:WikiProject GeographyTemplate:WikiProject Geographygeography articles

Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

WikiProject Geography To-do list:

Here are some tasks awaiting attention:

Article requests : See Requested articles/Social sciences/Geography, cities, regions and named places and Missing articles about Locations
Assess : Tag related article talk pages with {{WikiProject Geography}}. To help assess the quality and importance of geography articles, please see: Unassessed geography articles and Unknown-importance geography articles.
Cleanup : See Geography articles needing attention
Deletion sorting : Listed at Geographic related deletion discussions
Geographical coordinates : See Articles missing geocoordinate data by country
Infobox : See Geography articles needing infoboxes
Map : See Wikipedia requested maps
Notability : See Geography articles with topics of unclear notability
Photo : See Wikipedia requested photographs of places
Stubs : See Geography stubs

Guild of Copy Editors

This article was copy edited by Corinne, a member of the Guild of Copy Editors, on 1 January 2017.Guild of Copy EditorsWikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy EditorsTemplate:WikiProject Guild of Copy EditorsGuild of Copy Editors articles

It is requested that an image or photograph of Lastarria be included in this article to improve its quality. Please replace this template with a more specific media request template where possible.

Wikipedians in the following regions may be able to help:
Argentina	Chile

The Free Image Search Tool or Openverse Creative Commons Search may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites.

Upload

The following references may be useful when improving this article in the future:

A fact from Lastarria appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 11 August 2015 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:

Did you know... that solidified flows of sulfur have been found on Lastarria, a volcano in Chile?

A record of the entry may be seen at Wikipedia:Recent additions/2015/August. The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Lastarria.

Wikipedia

Sourcing

@Jo-Jo Eumerus:, putting this as a placeholder and taking a look....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 22:56, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The refs all look reliable at a glance, though might want to replace the oregon state webpage if you can. Good luck. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:00, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Lastarria/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Adityavagarwal (talk · contribs) 16:24, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am trying a good article review. Adityavagarwal (talk) 16:21, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

There are a few errors based on the good article criteria.

Is it well written?
A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
"Several volcanoes are located in this chain of volcanoes, which is formed " it should be plural right? If you are referring to the chain which is formed then no comma should be there. Comment The chain is formed, and a comma is needed because the clause is a non-restrictive (non-essential, non-identifying) adjective clause.

I mean "Several volcanoes are located in this chain of volcanoes which is formed " as, if the which refers to the chain then it is fine. However, if the which referred to the volcanoes, then it had to be "are" instead of "is".

"altitude,[19] and no comma is required. Comment not required, but all right. – Corinne (talk) 02:28, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"display evidence" missing an. Comment I re-worded the sentence.

"longest reaches a length" reaching. Comment Grammatically, the participial phrase "the longest reaching..." works, but it creates some ambiguity as it follows "pulses", so it could refer to "pulses". To avoid this, all that needed to be done was to change the comma to a semi-colon. After that, a new clause begins: "....; the longest reaches..." Then it is a little clearer that "the longest" refers to one of the massive flows.

"lake,[14] which may be" no comma required. Comment A comma is needed here; it is a non-restrictive (non-essential, non-identifying) adjective clause.

" long and well preserved" missing is. Comment "Is" is all right but not necessary. You don't have to repeat the verb be.

Would it not make it consistent?

" material like" material should be plural. Comment "Material" can be used in an uncountable sense: "loose material". See "pyroclastic material" in the "Edifice proper" section.

Material is fine if it is one substance. However, I think there were more than one materials being said "ash, lapilli, pumice, with only a few lithic blocks".

" the 1970 Ancash earthquake triggered on " missing had. Comment No. Past perfect is not necessary here. Past tense is fine.

"is evidence of" is an evidence if it is only one evidence or are evidences. Comment 1. The noun "evidence" is always uncountable. There is no plural form. 2. "Is evidence of" is a common construction. However, I re-worded the sentence to make it more concise.

" sulfur has formed flows" which formed? Comment I re-worded the sentence to avoid repeating the word "sulfur".

"with subduction of the" missing the. Comment No, I don't think it is. "Subduction", without "the", is general (and on-going).

It was there before I think.

" bordeer between" seems like the spelling might be wrong. Comment Yes, but I don't see this anywhere.

It was there before I think. Maybe somebody corrected that.

"aridity, as it" no comma might be required. Comment Technically, and traditionally, a comma is not used before an adverbial clause that follows the independent clause, but more and more writers are using the comma when it makes sense, and to make the sentence clearer. Here, I think because the sentence is so long, the comma makes sense here and adds to clarity. (But I don't see an edit removing a comma, so I am puzzled by this. There is no comma there.)

It was there before I think.

"and that the main" a comma might be required. Comment There is a comma there, so I don't understand this comment. Technically, no comma is required here, but it helps with the flow and understanding of the sentence.

"and, that the main" I mean the comma after "and". Since there was already a comma before "and", either you could put one comma after "and" or remove the comma after "and" (as you said).

"Lastarria and other volcanoes" missing the. Comment The word "the" currently appears before "other volcanoes", so I don't know to what you are referring. Jo-Jo Eumerus, "the other volcanoes" must refer to a specific group of volcanoes. It may not be clear to your readers what these other volcanoes are. Do you think it is clear? If not, you can make it clearer. Without "the", just "other volcanoes", it means several other volcanoes, but without specifying which ones. – Corinne (talk) 02:28, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Lastarria and the other volcanoes" this I mean. The "the" which was not there before is there now. It seems fine after the word "the" was put, but earlier it was not. It was, in fact, corrected by you, Jo-Jo Eumerus. However, maybe you forgot after correcting it.

B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
Is it verifiable with no original research?
A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:

B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:

C. It contains no original research:

D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
Is it neutral?
It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
Is it stable?
It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:

B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
Overall:
Pass or Fail:

@Adityavagarwal: Addressed some issues. Not sure what ""display evidence" missing an." is, however. Plenty sure the first item does not need a comma. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:44, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't understand that concern, either, but I re-worded the sentence. I also replied to all the comments above. – Corinne (talk) 02:48, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I meant that there was an "an" missing. However, as Corinne said, there was no need of an "an" as it was considered uncountable. There are few issues for which I wrote about following the mentions of Corinne, and also if there were any inconsistencies or improvements to be done for the GA, you can always point out. :) Adityavagarwal (talk) 09:20, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Corinne and Adityavagarwal: Corrected the "volcanoes" item; it's about a group of volcanoes that is not named in the text (and mostly not even in the source...). Anything else? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:32, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As I am not the reviewer of this volcano, I've made a couple of edits, mostly avoiding - and x in running text in convert templates, added portals and categories, fill of the infobox that lacks still the prominence and access (routes) to the mountain top, included the area and volcanic belt, some edits of text and corrections of links and Spanish spelling with accents. Also "Bibliography" instead of "Sources". Tisquesusa (talk) 19:56, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It seems fine. Nice work. :)Adityavagarwal (talk) 14:46, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]