This article is about a volcanic caldera in the central Andes. It is not particularly remarkable or well-known, but it has been described as one of the highest of its kind - and so are the mountains that surround it. It was active during the past 520,000 years and there might be residual heat available. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:46, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Geographical features like this are always stunning to me, especially good photos; the photo here makes it look almost miniature, if not for the hill on the left. Excited to review!
I try for BrEng, but being ESL means that I can't always keep it consistent. Any things that need to be turned to BrEng? JoJo Eumerus mobile (main talk) 16:55, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The Incapillo ignimbrite was erupted 0.52 ± 0.03 and 0.51 ± 0.04 million years ago - could just be me, but I don't know what the numbers here mean with the plus/minus sign. Any page you could link to for explanation?
This zone also includes the Altiplano-Puna volcanic complex - Altiplano-Puna should use an endash, like its native article (– for copying)
between 6.5 and 3.5 million years ago (mya). - really, just for myself, what's mya? Can't find a quick answer on Google- perhaps a wikt link would be helpful?
In the refs, is not having a space after "p." standard? In most I've worked with (particularly sfn templates) there's a space between p. and the number, which is the case in the cite journal refs you have there
Jo-Jo Eumerus, I got nothing else, most of my comments are due to my lack of knowledge on geology; but, always good to have a clueless person to give feedback ;) excellent work! MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 01:15, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Point 3: I believe it means 0.49-0.55 million years ago and 0.47-0.55 million years ago -- in layman English terms, "0.52 million years ago, give or take 0.03 million years." Would that be easier to understand? 267 06:07, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, now I understand- thanks for clarifying! I think your rephrasing would be more understandable to a general audience, but JoJo can use whatever is the wiki standard. MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 12:28, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I worry that this format will be mistaken for a date range/length when it's a point in time. JoJo Eumerus mobile (main talk) 16:55, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hey! Great to be reviewing another of your FACs, I remember doing one ages ago but can't seem to know which one. Anyways, take a look at the invisible comments for my cmts divided by sec. Alot of my comments are just minor stuff, so it should be a quick one. GeraldWL 06:41, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Jo-Jo Eumerus, that should be it! The links problem is admittedly a tiny one and shouldn't really affect my view on this FAC. Overall it's good stuff, so am happy to support! Also if you'd like, I'm looking for people to comment on my PR. GeraldWL 10:31, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from GeraldWL 10:31, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
* The WP article of La Rioja capitalizes "Province"-- though I think decapitalized version is also okay, I guess I'm just confused at the difference
Well, that's a good question. Here we mean "the Argentine province named La Rioja" and not "something called La Rioja Province" - my understanding of capitalization rules at least. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:39, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"one of several ignimbritic or calderic systems"-- does this mean the more generic term for ignimbritic is calderic?
No, it means that there are calderas without an ignimbrite and ignimbrites without a caldera. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:39, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Should Maricunga Belt perhaps be redlinked? I saw it being redlinked in some related articles.
Should link La Rioja again, and Argentina, and Andean
Did the first, but I wonder if the second and third are overlinking - especially since they'd be directly next to an existing blue link. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:39, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I do notice that they're also linked in the lead, and I'd say not everyone knows what Andes is. Looking at some of the other SEAOFBLUE instances in this article, it seems that it's inevitable. GeraldWL 08:57, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
So I guess we can leave them unlinked here. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:54, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'd note that links should typically be repeated in the body, and in this case all three subjects merit a link. I've fixed the Rioja link. GeraldWL 10:09, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
We'll have to agree to disagree on the Andes and especially Argentina link needing a re-link, sorry. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:16, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"is the highest caldera stemming from explosive volcanism in the world. The name Incapillo means 'Crown of the Inca' in Quechua"-- duplicate ref 4
Per WP:SPELL09, generally numbers below 10 should be in words
If you mean the ages, I think these are usually given in numbers. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:39, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The specific parts that got me was the ones without decimals, like "7–9 centimetres (2.8–3.5 in)", "2 million years ago", "5–20 centimetres (2.0–7.9 in)", "5 by 6 kilometres" etc. I'm more loose on the ones using Convert template, though it does accomodate SPELL09 to an extent. GeraldWL 08:57, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"At the latitude of Incapillo, the northern Antofalla [...] At the latitude of Incapillo"-- repetition, also maybe there's a possibility of merging the two paras?
Eh, I think they discuss slightly different topics and I don't have a synonym at hand. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:39, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Rhyolite should be linked here, not "Geologic history"
"Amphibole crystals are enclosed in intersitital plagioclase crystals and sometimes contain secondary biotite crystals. Amphibole is the dominant component"-- don't we know this already since you established earlier they are amphibole crystals? Not a geology guy so if I mistook the sentences correct me.
Er, do you mean the phenocrysts sentence? I am not sure that all amphibole is in crystal form here. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:39, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
At the first sentence you mentioned "Amphibole crystals", which for me means crystals consisting of amphibole or at least dominantly containing it. With that in mind, "Amphibole is the dominant component" shouldn't be necessary. GeraldWL 08:57, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the source says (essentially) "amphibolite xenoliths consisting mostly of amphibole" - talk about potentially ambiguous terminology. Opted to rearrange the sentences instead. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:54, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"of the Pircas Negras volcanism. Specific ages of the Pircas Negras"-- another repetition
Again, I don't have an unambiguous synonym at hand. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:39, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Debris flow should be linked in the first sentence of paragraph 3, not the penultimate one.
Instead of putting Portal beside the references making it narrower, it could be at the bottom of the article using Template:Portal bar, can also probably put Argentina, Volcano, Geography and Geology portals.
Another reviewer who has only limited knowledge of geology.
General notes:
Overall, my biggest concern is that there's a lot of technical language in this article. Effort should be made to WP:Make technical articles understandable. I suggest doing a full pass over the article to change technical wording to non-technical wording as much as you can. And when that's not possible, then try to insert simple explanations so the layman can follow along.
Decimals should be written in numeral form.
Lead:
"It is considered the southernmost volcanic centre..." – Is this a subjective description so that it has to be "considered"?
"the western Maricunga Belt volcanic arc" – It's red right now, but this will presumably become a MOS:SEAOFBLUE.
I'm hearing you, but I don't see much of a neat way to split this. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:06, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What about starting it with "volcanic arc of". It's a little wordier, but not so much that is affects the readability, I think. It's up to you though. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 19:29, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"the Incapillo ignimbrite, a medium-sized deposit" – Having never heard the word "ignimbrite" before, it might help to make it clearer that ignimbrite is a type of volcanic rock. Maybe have it say "Incapillo ignimbrite deposit" or "a medium-sized deposit of the volcanic rock ignimbrite" or something along those lines, depending on what works best and makes sense in this context.
"erupted 0.52 ± 0.03 and 0.51 ± 0.04 million years ago" – Would it work to give an approximate number of years in the lead and then this more specific description in the body?
I am kind of wary that it would result in people missing the margins of error. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:06, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Geography and structure:
"The surrounding mountain peaks were visited by pre-Hispanic people, and the crater is marketed as an area of touristic interest, with visits possible between December and April" – Are these two ideas related in any way?
No, other than they are of the same topic. I've split it. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:06, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This second paragraph of this section seems to be about the CVZ in a way that isn't relevant to Incapillo specifically. Wouldn't this paragraph be better suited at Andean Volcanic Belt#Central Volcanic Zone? Maybe it can be condensed down to one or two sentences of the most important details for the Incapillo article.
"Some domes have water-filled craters with widths of 20 metres" – Are they all exactly 20 metres, or should an "approximately" or an "about" be thrown in there?
Apparently exactly so Field observation and ASTER imagery reveal numerous water-filled pit craters 20 m in diameter on the summits of the largest of the western domesJo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:06, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"show signs of alteration" – This links to "hydrothermal alteration". Is there any reason why it's piped to remove "hydrothermal"?
"The lake may be either 350-metre (1,150 ft) or 13-metre (43 ft) deep" – This is a massive range. Is this because it changes throughout the year or because it's different a depth in different parts? Or did they just measure it by eyeballing it?
"it might lie at" – The word "might" introduces a little too much uncertainty.
Both of the comments above because it's two sources that don't agree and no obvious way to explain it. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:06, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
A little more research into the depth might be appropriate. It's currently too wide of a range to be of any value. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 19:29, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Done but it didn't yield anything. At best, we could exclude the 350m value as it's implausible and older but we are dancing on the line of WP:OR if we do this. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:14, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"its surface area declined between 1986 and 2017" – Then when are those previous measurements from?
Apparently they aren't dated, making this difficult to interpret. The source for the decrease claim gives an average area...for 1986 and 2017. Go figure...Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:06, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Geology:
"beneath the South American plate, in the area of the CVZ" – What purpose does this comma serve?
Regarding the proposed subdivisions, are these widely accepted ideas? Or are they just one-off suggestions that were made once by a few geologists? If it's the latter, they might not be due.
It doesn't seem like but Stern 2004 is one of the few Andes-wide review articles, so it seems due. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:06, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest either finding a second source that independently uses the same system or attributing it to Stern. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 19:29, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Went with the attribution route. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:14, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"Several studies by Suzanne Mahlburg Kay and others" – If these studies have been replicated, then is it necessary to attribute them to one scientist?
I don't think that Incapillo specifically has been repeatedly researched. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:06, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Then who are the others? What makes Suzanne Mahlburg Kay special? Thebiguglyalien (talk) 19:29, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
She's the lead author of the study. I've spelled them out. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:14, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
" the shallowing of the subducting slab prevented volcanism east and south of it. Another view..." – Does the "another view" contradict the previous statement?
"at relatively constrained depths of c. 65–70 kilometres (40–43 mi)" – For something other than years, I would just use "approximately" instead of "circa".
This seems a little short to have its own section. Is there more than can be said about these aspects? If not, could this be organized in a way that the information is part of a larger section?
Yeah, I prefer not to merge as there isn't a good section to add it to. The only information we have is very general and does not pertain specifically to Incapillo, only to this region. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:06, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"with an upper altitude limit of 4,300–5,000 metres" – Does this mean that this is the highest that any vegetation can appear? It's unclear.
This section feels like it's throwing numbers and statistics at me. Not sure how avoidable this is, but it does affect readability. It's possible that a lot of the measurements here could be put in a table, although that would depend on what the measurements are and whether they're comparable.
Yeah, it's not avoidable, really - when discussing history there will be a lot of dates. I don't think this kind of information is well-suited for a table, it's too much prose. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:06, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If there's some way to even break up the text a little bit so the numbers are less frequent or more spaced out, that would go a long way to improving readability. Some things here look like they would work well for a table, like "Volume of ignimbrite / 20.4 km3". But again, I'm not necessarily saying that it's the only solution. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 19:29, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I am not convinced that several small tables are better for readability. Here we might just have to take the text as it is. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:14, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"or less likely by changes in the tectonic context" – Is this an alternative theory that contradicts the previous one? If so, it should probably be introduced in its own sentence specifying that it's another explanation.
Ping me once everything has been addressed or if you have any other thoughts regarding these comments. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 19:11, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've handled comments, except as noted. Re: technical language, I'm afraid that as a connoisseur of the technical terms I can't spot the problematic ones myself; I'll footnote some of them to this source. Also, at the risk of sounding stupid but I don't get what the decimal comment is proposing. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:06, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've looked things over and replied to a few points above. If I haven't replied to it, assume it's good to go. For the decimals I just mean write "3.1" instead of "three point one"; it's not an integer, so it doesn't need to be spelled out. Once the rest of the comments here are addressed, I'll do one more scan of the article for language that might be overly technical. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 19:29, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I couldn't find that specific example but it seems to me like spelling out even simple digits makes this less readable, so I backed out some of the spelling ones. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:14, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've done one more quick scan of the article. Most of the technical terms can stay, especially since many of them are wikilinked for further context. Just a few more things to look at:
"an area of touristic interest" – Not technical per se, but "a tourist destination" or something like that is simpler.
"According to Stern 2004" – Stern probably doesn't actually need to be given attribution if it's the ideas of de Silva and Francis. Attribution to the latter two should be sufficient.
"At the latitude of Incapillo, the northern Antofalla terrane borders the Cuyania terrane, both of which were attached to South America during the Ordovician but are of different provenance" – Can this be written in simpler language
Did something, not sure if it's enough. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:18, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"The lead isotope ratios are consistent with the volcano having formed at" – A little clunky
Did something, not sure if it's enough. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:18, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
" Incapillo magmas probably formed as adakitic high-pressure mafic magmas derived from the crust, either directly by anatexis or indirectly by dragged-down crustal fragments" – Too technical
I don't think that magma provenance can be written in a non-technical fashion, sorry. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:18, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"These rocks form the last pulse" – Is "pulse" commonly used like this in geology?
"The Incapillo ignimbrite is an unwelded ignimbrite" – I don't know what "unwelded" means here, and two uses of "ignimbrite" is redundant
Simplified a bit, but I was hoping that unwelded-welded would be intuitive. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:18, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'll support promotion if all of these are changed or justified. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 16:41, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Jo-Jo Eumerus, I'm satisfied with the changes, and I support promoting this to FA. If you or any of the reviewers here are interested, I currently have an open FAC. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 16:06, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Pass: All have free-use licenses which check out nicely, and good to see alt text throughout. UndercoverClassicistT·C 13:00, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Source doesn't explicitly say so, but it's a volcano that has produced large ignimbrites. Sometimes they are more conspicuous than the volcano itself, e.g Cerro PanizosJo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:36, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"Incapillo is the southernmost volcano of the CVZ with Pleistocene activity." I still don't understand what this means.
Tried to recast it. It means that there are no volcanoes south of Incapillo with Pleistocene eruptions until Tupungato which is in the SVZ. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:36, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"Several studies by Suzanne Mahlburg Kay, Constantino Mpodozis and Moyra Gardeweg". Was this one study by each of them, or several by the three as a team?
Thank you. Could that be clarified in the article?
"because of a thickening crust and increased contribution thereof to the magmas." There is an increased contribution of crust material? (Just checking.)
"occurred first at Monte Pissis between 6.5 and 3.5 million years ago (mya). Later volcanism occurred south of Incapillo 4.7±0.5 mya". A (very) large part of the second range is not "Later" than the first. 0.7 my of it cannot be "Later".
"1.9±0.2 mya. Later, andesitic-rhyolitic volcanism formed ignimbrites and lava domes 2.9±0.4 – 1.1±0.4 mya". This "Later" has the same issue.
I think that a sentence or two early on explaining what ignimbrite is and how it is formed would be helpful.
I think these explanations are better left to footnotes (and there is currently one), they are distracting when in-text. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:22, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
HiGog, how is this one going? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 19:31, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry Ian, this got lost in the mix. There is one minor issue for Jo-Jo to sort, but I don't see why that should stand in the way of my supporting. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:37, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Adding on a question: is there a reasoning behind which sources are in the sources section, and which are simply defined in the reflist? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:05, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
AirshipJungleman29, those are called short footnotes or sfn, they are used when there are too many pages cited in an article towards the source. Learn more at Template:Sfn. GeraldWL 14:47, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think AirshipJungleman29 is familiar with sfn; in this case I think Jo-Jo has chosen to use shortened footnotes when a source is used more than once. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:01, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
HiMike, just checking that you consider this to be "consistently formatted inline citations using footnotes", especially "consistently"? Cheers. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:27, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's not a style I would use myself, because I think it looks odd, but since (if I've interpreted Jo-Jo's intentions correctly) there is a well-defined rule and it's consistently applied, I don't think it contravenes anything in WP:FACR. The other points I list above are issues, though. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 16:10, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
So, I see that on my one-week hiatus I missed this thing. In order:
The publisher thing is deliberate; only non-journals need it.
Changed.
Resolved.
I think it'd be duplicative relative to the other parameters.
The style thing is deliberate, but it's not something I use (anymore) except on some of the older articles I've written. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:32, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Closing comment – Jo-Jo Eumerus, please make sure to resolve Gog's final concern. I spotted two WP:SEAOFBLUE links ("Incapillo is a Pleistocenecaldera" and "The Nazca platesubducts beneath the South American plate"). It would be nice if you could find a way to avoid the links appearing as a single one, but none of these issues are worth delaying promotion over. FrB.TG (talk) 05:53, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. FrB.TG (talk) 05:53, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
