Talk:Tata Sabaya
Appearance
Tata Sabaya 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: August 15, 2018. (Reviewed version). |
This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The following references may be useful when improving this article in the future: |
GA
[edit]GA Review
[edit]GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
- This review is transcluded from Talk:Tata Sabaya/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Ceranthor (talk · contribs) 17:39, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
Happy to review this. ceranthor 17:39, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
- Lead
- Might be better to get rid of the infobox for this article.
- "Salar de Coipasa." - worth briefly clarifying this is a lake
- "The volcanic activity " - I'd remove "the" here
- "edifice has been constructed by andesitic rocks" - I've been told to replace "constructed" before for anthropomorphic connotations; what do you think about using "created" or "produced by" instead?
- "The southern flank of Tata Sabaya failed" - maybe a better link here would be mass wasting?
- " during the latest Pleistocene " - latest Pleistocene?
- "Subsequently the collapse scar was partly filled in with more recent lava flows and lava domes; one eruption occurred about 6,000 years before present." - was this the last eruption? If not, this last bit might be irrelevant
- Not sure about the infobox. Used "formed", "created" and "produced by" has the same anthropomorphic connotations IMO. "Latest Pleistocene" is a common word for "between 100,000 and 10,000 (Holocene) years ago". We don't know whether there was one or more eruptions after the collapse, probably more than one though. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 18:38, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
- Geography and geomorphology
- "The volcano is a topic in local myths, where it is sometimes personified.[6]" - any elaboration on how it's personified?
- "Tata Sabaya is a mountain which reaches a height of 5,430 metres (17,810 ft).[8][1]" - is it worth stating that it's "a mountain" when you've previously clarified it's a volcano? Seems redundant. Also switch [8] and [1] in order here
- "Five lava flows extend north from the summit and display levees and flow fronts, the flows reaching a maximum length of 2 kilometres (1.2 mi); the top of these flows is cut by a collapse scar that extends east and west of the edifice in the form of scarps up to 50 metres (160 ft) high.[9]" - break up into more than one sentence
- Link hummock
- Would it be possible to increase the size of images in the gallery?
- Not sure how to word an explanation of the personification; apparently Tata Sabaya may be the father of a certain "Capurata". Got the others. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 18:38, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
- Geology
- "Based on research several phases of tectonic and volcanic activity have been identified in the Central Volcanic Zone." - not sure what "based on research" adds here, I think that's implied
- Link Porphyritic
- Clarify what mafic means (parenthetical should be fine)
- Climate and vegetation
- any more on this?
- Quantitative estimates or averages available at all?
- I don't think so. Tata Sabaya like most Bolivian volcanoes is very poorly studied. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 18:38, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
- Eruption history
- " The young age of the mountain has been inferred from the lack of moraines[8] and glaciation on the mountain, " - might make logical sense to switch glaciation and moraines, since glaciers precede moraines? Just a thought
- Think you want a different link for fallout, not nuclear fallout :)
- Got the first. For whatever reason, we only have an article for the nuclear version. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 18:38, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
- References
- Earwig's tool checks out
- Ref 11 should not be in all caps
- Anything the GVP site can add content-wise?
- Images
- Everything in the gallery is definitely CC? Does the journal clarify this somewhere on its website? (I can read Spanish fairly well)
- At the bottom of the page it says
Todo el contenido de esta revista, excepto dónde está identificado, está bajo una Licencia Creative Commons
with a link to this permitted license and no indication that these images are exempted. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 18:38, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
good work. Should be easy to fix these concerns. ceranthor 17:49, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
- Got these. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 18:38, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
- @Jo-Jo Eumerus: I tweaked the fallout to link to volcanic ash. Otherwise, happy to pass this. ceranthor 18:52, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
Categories:
- Wikipedia good articles
- Geography and places good articles
- GA-Class WikiProject Volcanoes articles
- Mid-importance WikiProject Volcanoes articles
- All WikiProject Volcanoes pages
- GA-Class Mountain articles
- Low-importance Mountain articles
- Wikipedia requested images of mountains
- All WikiProject Mountains pages
- GA-Class Bolivia articles
- Unknown-importance Bolivia articles