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
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
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Bolivia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of all Bolivia-related articles 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.BoliviaWikipedia:WikiProject BoliviaTemplate:WikiProject BoliviaBolivia articles
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
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 was copy edited by Miniapolis, a member of the Guild of Copy Editors, on 7 December 2016.Guild of Copy EditorsWikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy EditorsTemplate:WikiProject Guild of Copy EditorsGuild of Copy Editors articles
A fact from Licancabur appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 16 February 2017 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
Did you know... that Licancabur(pictured), despite being smaller than many of the neighbouring volcanoes, stands out among them?
A fact from Licancabur appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 19 March 2017 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
Did you know... that Licancabur volcano (pictured) was venerated by the Atacamenos?
As discussed on my user talk page and the talk page of this editor, the source does not mention Licancabur at all and it's not clear that it is reliable either: "The border area around Licancabur was mined by the Chileans during the dicatatorship of Pinochet. Although de-mining has taken place along some roads from the Chilean side, there are still mines in the area. For this reason, the Bolivian route to the summit is recommended[1]." Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 19:54, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I re-added a comment similar to the original one I made. All claims are now backed up with references. Hopefully that checks out. Thanks. Kamerondeckerharris (talk) 15:38, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Seems good to me...except that I can see an "International Journal of Culture and History" on User:JzG/Predatory/M. JzG, is this from the same dubious publisher? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:29, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@JzG: As a working academic myself, my opinion is it's hard to determine who is or isn't "predatory". In some people's view, top journals like Nature, Cell, Science, and the whole Elsevier group are "predatory". However, from what I can tell this is a peer-reviewed journal although it's not in my field. I do not see IJCH on the User:JzG/Predatory/M list. What is wrong with the land mine & cluster munitions monitor? The UN itself uses it as a source https://research.un.org/en/mines/statisticsKamerondeckerharris (talk) 18:17, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Aye, but on Wikipedia we've settled on a particular definition of "predatory". I've rewritten the text to strip out the unreliable sources. Also, to be honest it seems like the landmining issue has been given a bit of WP:Undue weight on Wikipedia; it's only a minor component of the history of this volcano. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:26, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Result: Per Kusma, no reason to delist; GAR is not peer review.~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 23:31, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 17:09, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@AirshipJungleman29: Took care of some issues. In my experience, GOCE is not really the right place for pre-FAC copyedits; I think I'll ask @SandyGeorgia and Hog Farm:, when they have time. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:54, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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.
"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").
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?
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)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
.svg){kind=small}
.svg)
