Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Llullaillaco/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 7 May 2025 [1].

Llullaillaco

[edit]
Nominator(s): Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:23, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the tallest volcano with recent activity on Earth (measured from sea level), which among other things features a major Inka archaeological site, mummies of children, and mice. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:23, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Wehwalt

[edit]
  • "A weather station installed on Llullaillaco in 2004 was for some time the highest in the world.[23] " Do we need to be so vague? Given the recency, I'm sure we can say definitely how long it was the highest.
    The source was similarly uninformative, I'm afraid. However, this source proffered by Perplexity AI suggests that in 2011 a weather station on Everest was destroyed by winds, so probably beginning from there to 2019? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:49, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • " Sala de Llullaillaco" redlinked on second usage, then again somewhat later.
    Mended. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:49, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • "About 178 volcanoes are found in the Andes, 60 of which have been active in historical times. In addition, there are large calderas and monogenetic volcanoes.[74]" This small paragraph seems isolated in theme. Can it not be incorporated to your discussion of Andean vulcanism that begins this section?
    Hmm. That paragraph is a bit aside from the topic of the section beginning. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:49, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The total magma output at Llullaillaco is about 0.05 cubic kilometres per millennium (0.012 cu mi/ka)[47]-0.02–0.04 km3/ka.[45]" Are the parentheses in the proper places here?
    Yes. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:49, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The paths on Llullaillaco are not simple footpaths but equipped with retaining walls, delimited edges[204] and above "Portezuelo del Inca" with staircases." The end reads very oddly.
    Recast it. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:49, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and in 24 June 2014 " should in be on?
    Yes, done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:49, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • "At the 5561 m high Azufrera Esperanto mountain 5 km north of Llullaillaco little original volcanic substance is preserved and where erosion has exposed deeply altered white rock.[34] " The last clause reads oddly."
    Recast it. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:49, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That's it.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:41, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:25, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Source review by Generalissima

[edit]

@Jo-Jo Eumerus: Apologies for the typical nitpicking; I'm a sucker for citation consistency. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 17:24, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Generalissima, where are we up to with this source review? Cheers. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:51, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Generalissima ? Gog the Mild (talk) 15:12, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oh i'm so sorry, i forgot i never supported! Support. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 19:40, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

[edit]

Kusma

[edit]

Planning to review, but might take a few days. —Kusma (talk) 12:46, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

More tomorrow! —Kusma (talk) 21:03, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Conditions on Mars: maybe mention in which way this resembles Mars? [2]
    Possibly, annoyingly that source is quite sparing when directly comparing Llullaillaco to Mars, since it talks about these volcanoes in general. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:17, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Cerro Paranal, 190 km away as measured through Google Maps." the source says they used Google Earth.
    Fixed. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:17, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • "It rises about 2.2 km[27]-2.5 km" usually you do not repeat the unit in such ranges; can you move the ref and drop the first km?
    Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:17, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Morphologically, these flows are reddish-black aa lava flows and feature black and reddish glassy blocks with sizes of 5 m" this sentence is repeated soon after.
    Not sure how that happened, but yanked. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:17, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Only Quebrada de las Zorritas carries permanent water.[53] There is a permanent spring there,[54] possibly in Quebrada de Llullaillaco and Quebrada de Tocomar as well" So is it possibly wrong that only Quebrada de las Zorritas carries permanent water? Or can a valley have a permanent spring without permanent water?
    Yes, since a single pond doesn't a creek or flow make. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:17, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Debris avalanche: "The landslide occurred no later than 156,000 – 148,000 ± 5,000 years ago,[40] it might coincide with the 48,000 year old lava flow.[61]" I don't think I understand the error bars. If the lava flow could have coincided with something 48000 years ago, surely we can't say it was more than 143000 years ago? Also, is the ± 5,000 the error bar for just the end of the period of the landslide or for both beginning and end? (I understand that the landslide took several thousand years; if my understanding is wrong, can you perhaps write error bars that are easier to interpret?) If these are several studies that disagree with each other, perhaps saying "no later than" in wikivoice is not optimal.
    So, the problem with dating landslides by the age of the rocks that make them up is that the rocks can be much older than the landslide (which probably took minutes not millennia). I corrected this to "no earlier than" Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:17, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Geology: "Volcanism is not continuous along the Andes, rather it occurs" isn't this a place for a semicolon?
    Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:17, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • "About 178 volcanoes are found in the Andes". "Llullaillaco is one[77] of more than 1,000 volcanoes in the CVZ". But the CVZ is part of the Andes, so the other volcanic zones in the Andes have a negative number of volcanoes?? Also, can you try not to have a one-sentence paragraph here?
    Specified, dunno where to attach it to. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:17, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Volcanism in the Central Volcanic Zone mostly occurs, [..] where high stratovolcanoes [..] occur" perhaps find a different word than "occur"
    Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:17, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for reviewing so slowly! I'll look at the rest (and your responses) soon. —Kusma (talk) 21:26, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Local setting: Is there a layman's version of this section? As a non-geologist, I am not so sure what I need to know here.
    Mostly the geography. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:07, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The basement in the 70 km thick crust" what is the "basement"? Link to Earth's crust? Tell us that 70km is extremely thick?
    "Basement" is one of these fuzzy terms that geologists love. 70km is indeed tick. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:07, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Composition: What is "plagioclase crystallization"? It is not even linked.
    Crystallization of plagioclase, rewrote this. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:07, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The total magma output at Llullaillaco is about 0.05 cubic kilometres per millennium (0.012 cu mi/ka)[47]-0.02–0.04 km3/ka" the value and the range contradict each other; you could give an approximate value and footnote it with the literature references to make this more readable.
    Recast it. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:07, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Climate: "the close coincidence between summer solstice with the day where Earth is closest to the Sun" I understand that being in the Southern Hemisphere gives a potential higher daily maximum for the insolation. Is this what is meant? Over the course of the year it should not matter too much whether perihelion and solstice are far away or not (or if it does matter, it is not obvious without some computations).
    Yes, for the purposes of determining maximum UV radiation it does make a difference. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:07, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I think my point is that "sunniest place on Earth" makes me think "place with the maximum total amount of solar radiation per year", not "place where the sun is the most powerful at some point in the year"; it would be nice to clarify that the second is what is meant.
    Explained. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:45, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • "radiocarbon years ago" is that usual jargon? Or would it be better to say "Radiocarbon dating of deposits indicates..."?
    Oy. Misplaced digits in page numbers suck. I rewrote this. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:07, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Snow and glaciers: "Some traces of past glacier activity are found in the summit area,[39] cirques may have existed" semicolon?
    Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:07, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Flora and fauna: "A scorpion species is named after the volcano." what is the name of that species and is it found near the volcano?
    Added, apparently close to the northern foot of the volcano. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:07, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • "A species of bacterium was discovered in the lake" does it have a name?
    Added. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:07, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Archeology: "After the initial discovery in 1952, further expeditions by various researchers and organizations took place in 1953, 1954, 1958, 1961, 1974, 1983, 1984, 1985 and 1993" do you really need this incomplete list of years? If you do, why do you not list the 1999 one? And the 1972 discovery of the cemetery?
    No, pulled it. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:07, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Portezuelo del Inca" better with {{lang}}? Translation?
    Not without a source; false friends are a risk with placenames. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:07, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • staircases(above "Portezuelo del Inca") spacing.
    Fix. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:07, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Archaeological sites on mountains are widespread in the Andes" this paragraph puts the archeology section into context and would be nicer to read before reading on the specifics of archeology on Llullaillaco.
    OK, done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:07, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Rest by tonight I hope. —Kusma (talk) 09:58, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Children: " They were a 7-year-old boy, a 6-year-old girl and a 15-year-old girl (later research has suggested lower ages for all three" either use "they were originally described as a 7-year-old boy ..." or just use only the most recent research. Currently you are claiming in wikivoice that the later research is wrong.
    I am not sure that Ceruti's conclusions have been accepted, though. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:07, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    If you are not sure they have been rejected either, you should not state the older report's conclusions in wikivoice without hedging as "have been reported as" or similar. —Kusma (talk) 14:27, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    From a quick lookover, it seems like Ceruti's conclusions have not been widely accepted. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:45, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • " It is not clear how they were killed" at this point in the article we do not even know that they were killed, so perhaps "it is not clear how they died"? You could explain that there were cult human sacrifices a bit earlier, then this would work better.
    Moved it up, but now I am unsure if the sentence is overly long. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:07, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • "pre-Columbian": do we know more precisely when these children were sacrificed?
    Oddly, I can't find any reference to radiocarbon dating of the mummies. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:07, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    But are they Inca empire? (That would be possible to establish by cultural clues and mean 13th to 15th century?)
    Yes. I prefer to punt details on dates etc to the subarticle. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:45, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Eruption history: "two stages of construction are recognized, Llullaillaco I and Llullaillaco II" does this mean that the currently existent mountain was built up by eruptions during two different periods, and the eruptions are called Ll I and Ll II? (Can you write this using less jargon?)
    Rewrote this. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:07, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • What is "unidentified" about the "unidentified young flow"? Does nobody know where it is, or do you just mean the sources don't say where it is?
    The source can't be bothered to say which flow it is. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:07, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Then just say "another younger flow" or something; that this particular source doesn't give the location doesn't mean it isn't known. —Kusma (talk) 14:27, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Went with "different" because "young" in many cases refers to the three major Llullaillaco lava flows, which might not include this one. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:45, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Historical activity and hazards: I am confused what "recorded but unconfirmed" means. Why do we have more detail about the 19th century ones than the 1960 one? What do the archeological sites (which are hundreds of years older) have to do with "steam and ash" in the 19th century?
    My understanding is that sometimes there are reports of eruptions and it's not clear if they are legit (confusing mountains with each other - see Copiapó (volcano) for an example - or fumarolic activity for eruptions). Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:07, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Climbing and access: do we know why there were landmines in the area? (Also, if they were removed, there were landmines in the area, not reports of landmines).
    It's probably to do with political disputes between these countries. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:07, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    From [3] it seems the Chileans knew how many mines there were (1987 anti-personnel, 400 anti-tank mines) so it does seem clear there were indeed landmines, probably Chilean ones. If you say "there are reports of landmines" instead of "there are landmines" it casts doubts on their existence; is there a reason to do so? —Kusma (talk) 14:27, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    So the problem is that a 2010 source speaks of an existing minefield but is ambiguous on whether they are talking about 2010 (which would imply the mine removal effort didn't get all) or an earlier year. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:45, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • "According to John Biggar, some roads are dead ends" this is one of very few places in the article where you attribute statements instead of using wikivoice. Is there a good reason to attribute here? And who is John Biggar?
    A mountaineer who has written on the region. I am not sure if he's a very reliable source (it has been cited a couple of times in more reliable ones) but since it's literally the only one I can find. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:07, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Two ascents with camps" ... "The first known ascent" you use "ascent" to mean two different things here: the ascent route and the act of going up the mountain.
    Renamed. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:07, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Are Chileans "Westerners"?
    For the purpose of this analysis, yes. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:07, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • "prehistoric ascents" is there an estimate on how early these were? (A lot earlier than the children?)
    No, dating ruined stone constructions on mountaintops isn't something that's routinely done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:07, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Done reviewing. The archaeology together with the extreme height and aridity makes this a really interesting volcano. (I wish we had more archaeology and culture and less geology, but that's just me). I'll go and look at your responses soonish. —Kusma (talk) 15:16, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support  Comments  from Noleander

[edit]
  • Ambiguous in Lead: Despite its height, it is not clear whether the volcano has any glaciers or merely patches of perennial snow and ice. Kinda confusing sentence. It could mean (a) there is year-round snow; but geographers have not determined yet if they are true glaciers; or just snow; or (b) It is not clear if there is any year-round snow/glaciers. I'm guessing it is (a), but in the lead, readers should not have to slow down & parse. Suggest clarify the wording.
    To be honest, even from reading the sources I am not always exactly sure what there is there. Never mind that the observation timespan spans decades and a snowfield reported in 1985 might not be around in 2025. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:01, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Confusing in Lead: The mountain's first recorded climb was in 1950, but traces of earlier climbs and a number of archaeological sites were found on the mountain and at its feet; Llullaillaco marks the highest archaeological site in the world. In 1999, the mummified remains of three children,... There is a big difference between the nouns "climb" and "ascent". Starting off, I thought "Okay, modern climbers climbed to the peak in 1950, but archaeologists are not sure ("traces of earlier climbs") if pre-Columbian people climbed to the peak. Then it says there were mummified remains at the top, so there was a pre-Col ascent. I suggest making it clear that there was a Pre-Columbian ascent of the mountain _before_ mentioning the 1950 modern ascent.
    Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:01, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • InfoBox: "First Ascent" - First ascent 1950, but previous climbs by Inca The WP article on First_ascent says first ascent is the "date of the first documented ascent". The purpose of the qualifier "documented" is to sift-out false or unverified claims of making it to the top. "Documented" in that context is not limited to modern photographs or magazine articles, correct? Mummies left at the top are 100% concrete documentation of an ascent, and meet the "First Ascent" criteria, IMHO. Suggest change InfoBox to read First ascent: circa 1500. First ascent in modern era: 1950. or First ascent: circa 1500.
    Actually, cut the 1950 part. I aren't comfortable with saying "modern" because that leaves ambiguity about potential ascents in 1600 or so. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:01, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are only limited climate data from Llullaillaco. I presume the lack of detailed data is because there are no weather-recording devices on, or near, the peak. If the sources say that, maybe the article could also say so. Not a big deal.
    Yeah, not many data but nothing I recall explicitly says so. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:57, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Elaborate: There are reports of landmines in the area; Can you add a few words explaining why the landmines where placed there? A border dispute between Chile and Argentina?
    Don't know much about the regional political history or sources to say so, sorry. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:57, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete "parent" category: Category list at bottom has both Category:Volcanoes of Antofagasta Region and Category:Volcanoes of Chile. The latter should be deleted because since it is a grandparent of the former. When category A contains subcategory B, only B should be listed at the bottom of an article, not both A and B.
    Seems to be already gone? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:57, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Jo-Jo Eumerus: That's all I can find. Notify me when the above issues are addessed/resolved. Note that some are optional suggestions. Noleander (talk) 01:11, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Noleander: Replied. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:57, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Jo-Jo Eumerus: More landmine questions: the article has the mines were removed in 2006 thanks to a multinational effort.[263] and cite [263] is Rivera, Jorge Riquelme (2015). "El MERCOSsUR y la formación de una comunidad pluralista de seguridad en el Cono Sur". Revista Enfoques: Ciencia Política y Administración Pública (in Spanish). 9 (14): 41. ISSN 0718-9656. The cite says publication year is 2015, but I looked online for the article and found only an article from 2011 ... is the publication year 2011 or 2015?
    The URL says "Publicado: Jan 5, 2015 ", dunno why they say both 2011 and 2015. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:25, 27 April 2025 (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/Llullaillaco/archive1&oldid=1289337728"