Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Payún Matrú/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Featured article candidates

This is the current revision of this page, as edited by MalnadachBot (talk | contribs) at 21:27, 9 February 2023 (Fixed Lint errors. (Task 12)). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this version.

(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
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 Laser brain via FACBot (talk) 16 July 2019 [1].

Payún Matrú

[edit]
Nominator(s): Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:50, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a volcano in Argentina. It was active starting from the Pleistocene until recent times, that is until 515 years ago, and consists of a shield volcano capped off by a caldera formed during an explosive eruption and a mass of monogenetic volcanoes. It is not particularly remarkable as far as volcanoes go, save for its giant lava flows which are among the longest of the Quaternary; one of these is known as Pampas Onduladas and is almost 200 kilometres (120 mi) long. If such an eruption were to occur today, though, it would not be much of a threat to anyone; the region is thinly inhabited. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:50, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Hurricane Noah

[edit]

Quite an impressive article. Most of those issues should be easy to fix. NoahTalk 01:01, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Hurricane Noah:Thanks. I think I got all these issues. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 07:26, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Looks fine now... Support NoahTalk 10:21, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments from Tim riley

[edit]

A few spellings looked a bit odd to me, at first read-through, but it may an Engvar thing:

  • Aerodinamically – aerodynamically?
  • Sinouous – sinuous?
  • Abovelying – is there such a word in AmE? Looks very odd to an English eye.
  • Coulee – the OED prescribes an acute accent. Engvar, very possibly, as I know AmE users are allergic to diacriticals.

As far (not very, or indeed not at all) as I am any judge the text is authoritative and comprehensive. It is certainly very readable for a non-expert visitor. I lean towards supporting, but will, if I may, delay signing on the dotted line, to see if more informed editors than I express a view on the scientific content. – Tim riley talk 21:10, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Tim riley: Nah, these were mostly typos; I've remedied them. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:17, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Pinging Tim riley to see whether SnowFire's comment satisfies more informed editors than I express a view on the scientific content. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 07:38, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Happy to support, having read those comments. Tim riley talk 05:23, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • Suggest scaling up the stratigraphy
  • Suggest adding alt text
@Nikkimaria: Got them. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 18:55, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

[edit]
  • Spotchecks not carried out
  • Links: all links to sources are working, per the external links checker tool
  • Formats
  • Ref 1 requires retrieval date
  • Ref 99 is not properly formatted, and requires retrieval date
  • Replace hyphens with ndashes in the page ranges in refs 10, 48, 50, 88, 107
  • Ref 121 requires pp. not p.
  • Use of "Retrieved" and "retrieved" in sources
  • In sources, Diaz requires "in Spanish"
  • Same for Mikkan 2017
  • External links: Smithsonian Institute is used as a source (ref 1)

Comments Tentative support from Cas Liber

[edit]

Taking a look now....

...whose foot coincides with the 1,750 m (5,740 ft) elevation line and which extends mainly east-west... - this comes out odd. Might be better as, "whose foot extends mainly east-west and coincides with the 1,750 m (5,740 ft) elevation line" (?)
That wouldn't work as the "east-west" bit is about the volcano as a whole. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:04, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
..it covers about 5,200 km2 (2,000 sq mi) of land with lavas - I don't understand the use of lava in plural here.
Remedied. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:04, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
hang on, is it the volcano that rises 2 km above the surrounding plain or its foot?
The source says verbatim stands 2,000 m above the surrounding plain; this will need more rewording to avoid close paraphrasing issues if we put "plain" in. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:04, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Para 2 of Local needs some work. Just not sure how just yet....
Did some rewrites here. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:04, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
... the area of Payún Matrú is largely devoid of permanent water resources - do we need "resources", which is a word we'd use for servicing human settlements or businesses. Either "sources" or leave out altogether.
Changed to "sources". Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:04, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
..The volcanic field has erupted rocks... - "erupted" is odd here as a transitive verb.."produced"?
Yes; changed this. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:04, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
There are two profile/landscape photos of the volcano. Can we add any information as to where they are taken from (what aspect) as I am otherwise unsure if is necessary to have both....
@Casliber:The files don't have this kind of information, seems like, although the aspects appear to be different (note the shape of the summit crater). Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:04, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, looking better...more questions:

Right, I feel this is a difficult topic to get a good flowing narrative in the prose, and I think you've done the best you can. I can't see any outstanding prose or comprehensiveness issues but my eye for detail is not as good as some others' so I'll offer a tentative support Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:41, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from SnowFire

[edit]

This is a bit out of my domain, but I had a geologist friend give the article a look over, and he didn't see any obvious problems or suspicious sources. Support. Other comments, all optional:

  • I am of the reverse opinion of Hurricane Noah, spelling metric units out is just fine in my book rather than abbreviating them. It's a stylistic preference either way.
  • There are several references to the "local population" and "oral tradition by local inhabitants". Who are these locals? Part of the indigenous peoples in Argentina I presume? If so, do they have a name? What (possibly extinct) language was "Payún Matrú" originally in? If the last eruption was 500 years ago, this was a Pre-Colombian era eruption then. Are there still the same locals now, or is the area largely Europeanized like the rest of Argentina, in which case it'd be more like "According to the original local population" rather than the current one? (Yes, I recognize that info about Amerindians in Argentina is really shoddy and this information might be hard to get at, but hopefully there's at least a name somewhere.)
    The first unfortunately only vaguely refers to "local people". Regarding the second, after a bit of turns this source says No volcanic activity was witnessed in the last 200 years, since Argentinean colonization, but according to a local Indian their tribe was already in the area when the last eruption occurred, and it is likely that this oral tradition has existed no more than several centuries (Groeber 1946). None of the sources about the volcano discusses ethnicity or the like. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:34, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    For the second, then, maybe best to be explicit and mirror the source - see this edit (feel free to adjust or revert, I didn't know the page number to cite from Inbar & Risso). SnowFire (talk) 19:12, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    @SnowFire:Regarding although no eruptions have been observed since the European settlement. the source says no human-recorded eruptions I am not sure if these should be considered synonyms. I've added the pagenumber to the other reference. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:23, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm pretty sure my interpretation is what the source means. If we only have an oral tradition of an eruption, it's technically true that we have no human-recorded eruptions, but the key word is "recorded" not "human". People were there, they just didn't have written records. Better and clearer to say "none since Europeans arrived" then say "no historical eruptions" and force the reader to know that "history" starts with European settlement in academic usage. SnowFire (talk) 22:11, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Eh, we'll see if anyone else has concerns about this being unduly interpretative. I agree that "historical eruptions" is a mite unclear but it is hard to define. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:16, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "It is also known as Payun Liso,[25] Payún and Payún Liso.[26] " --> Despite what your Spanish teacher said, accents are not really THAT important in the age of Twitter, especially for place names that are probably not originally Spanish. This (and "Payun" from the previous sentence) is all basically the same name. Pick the most popular spelling (Payun?) and use that in the previous sentence, and move the alternate spellings / abbreviations to the Footnotes section? Or keep just "Payun" and "Payun Liso" in the text as an alternative.
    With respect to Payxn Liso, it seems like either spelling is used in sources. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:34, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Uneroded volcanic cones and dark basaltic lavas indicate that activity continued into the Holocene and oral tradition by local inhabitants indicate that recent volcanic activity occurred,[17] although no historical eruptions have been observed." --> I know that this means "historical era" in the sense of written history, but suspect this might still confuse some lay readers. Maybe something more like "Uneroded volcanic cones and dark basaltic lavas indicate that activity continued into the Holocene. Oral tradition by local inhabitants indicate that volcanic activity occurred during the Pre-Columbian era, but no eruptions have been observed since."
    I don't think Pre-Columbian era is correct here as Europeans arrived to these parts of Argentina later. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:34, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    That's what I was trying to express in the above sentence - that the last observed eruption was pre-European settlement. If you don't like Pre-Columbian era for that, would just writing it out work? (Geological time "recent", sure, but "recent" might throw some lay readers.) See same edit as above. SnowFire (talk) 19:12, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Future volcanic eruptions would be unlikely to constitute a hazard" --> Did any of the sources also comment on if future eruptions are likely, a separate issue from their impact if they happen?
    Not as far as I can tell. I suspect that like most volcanoes in the world, the future hazard of eruptions here is not well studied, probably also because it's so remote. I see that SEGEMAR (the Argentine geological agency) has no webpage for dangerous volcanoes. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:34, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Andesite? In the Andes? It's more likely than you'd think!

SnowFire (talk) 13:56, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@SnowFire:Thanks for the review; commented on some points. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:34, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from Red Phoenix

[edit]

This was a neat article to read. Argentina has always seemed like an interesting part of the world to me since I took classes on Latin America years ago. Oddly enough, reading this made me want to put on Top Gear: Patagonia Special as background noise while I prepared this review. Bear with me as I'm admittedly not the best prose reviewer, but I'll let you know what I see from a good reading.

  • On a note of comprehensiveness, does this volcano have a cultural history at all? Have people lived here and does it have a significance to a culture? If not, we're in good shape here, but I wondered since it's part of an area listed as selected to be a World Heritage site (and if that significance applies to the area and not this volcano, I understand it belongs better elsewhere).
    Not as far as the sources go, and I am inclined to believe that as far as Google Scholar is concerned absence of evidence is evidence of absence, as it usually covers even foreign language topics extensively. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:12, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • The highest point of the volcanic field is the[17] 3,796 m (12,454 ft) high,[1] conical, eroded Payun stratovolcano.[17] - The first citation feels like it's in a very weird spot, and given it's in the same sentence at the end, I would personally presume it's safe to remove. I'm sure the intention was to be very specific on the citation but it's a bit visually distracting in this format. That or perhaps the sentence can be reworded to avoid this?
    Hrm, the first source does not give the elevation and the second does not say that it's the highest (but gives no counterargument either). That's why it has a split reference. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:12, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not an expert in geology, admittedly. I see that lava rise and lava tumuli are redlinked. Is there an article that covers these even if not at full article depth for someone reading now who doesn't know?
    Not currently; I think that this publication may contain explanations. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:12, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Other volcanic fields in the region are the Llancanelo volcanic field, the Nevado volcanic field and Salado Basin volcanic field, the first two lie north of Payún Matrú and the last south. - wouldn't a semicolon make more sense than a comma for the last separation between the list of volcanic fields and their

locations? Otherwise, it sort of looks like part of the list.

Very nice job with this article. I enjoyed reading it, and it reads to me as very professionally written, informative, and chock full of facts. It pretty well reads as FA standard to me, though I'd like to have my comments answered just to be sure, and I'll be willing to lend my support. Red Phoenix talk 18:05, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Red Phoenix: Replied to the points. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:12, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
All right, looks good. It's enough explanation for me. Support. Red Phoenix talk 21:39, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Bulleted list item

Comments by Ceoil

[edit]

This is very impressive and hope to support. Two things to start off;

  • some terms are used repetitively, eg lava flow, volcanic field. (not stating this as actionable, but as a warning for some c/es)
  • "Payún Matrú developed over sediments and volcanic rocks ranging from the Mesoproterozoic to Tertiary ages" - I dont get this. Developed upon, or during. Would prefer that terms like Mesoproterozoic were clarified with eg (1,600 to 1,000 myr).
  • the 1,750 m (5,740 ft) elevation line, the wot?

Ceoil (talk) 19:37, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings, Ceoil. I've taken the liberty to match your header to these used by other commenters. Regarding the first point: I've unlinked some excessive "lava flow" links, I am not sure about whether replacing some mentions with "flow" is a good idea; when I read the text with "flow" mentally subtracted I always feel like "what kind of flow?". Not sure about other words. I've rewritten that sentence and added some million years dates on some of the date metrics. Replaced "elevation line" with "elevation contour", does that fix the problem? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:03, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes mostly thanks. We just ec'd, so I might reintroduce some errors or some such shortly, but to say this is a fascinating read. Ceoil (talk) 20:12, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, so can you be clearer. Ceoil (talk) 22:16, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Reworded a bit more. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 12:39, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Payún_Matrú/archive1&oldid=1138468825"