Wikipedia

Talk:Huaynaputina/Archive 1

< Talk:Huaynaputina
Latest comment: 2 years ago by 176.59.164.23 in topic File:Huaynaputina.jpg deletion request

External links modified

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Huaynaputina. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:25, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Sources that need more discussion

Status update

Latest comment: 5 years ago54 comments2 people in discussion

Some things already done:

  • Applied all Google Scholar sources with "Huaynaputina" intitle.
  • Searched through all Wiley sources.
  • Apply Google Scholar site:springer.com site:pubs.geoscienceworld.org site:sciencedirect.com site:cambridge.org site:nature.com site:science.sciencemag.org site:researchgate.net site:ovi.ingemmet.gob.pe sources.
  • Apply https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C5&q=huaynaputina+-intitle%3A%22huaynaputina%22+site%3Asciencedirect.com&btnG= as I have source access.
  • Apply huaynaputina -intitle:"Huaynaputina" -site:wiley.com -site:springer.com -site:pubs.geoscienceworld.org -site:sciencedirect.com -site:cambridge.org -site:nature.com -site:science.sciencemag.org -site:researchgate.net -site:ovi.ingemmet.gob.pe sources.

To-do:

  • Apply Wiley sources not yet received.
  • Sources that need more discussion; resolve.
  • Apply http://repositorio.igp.gob.pe/handle/IGP/797
  • Search for news and edu or gov sources.
  • Need solution for French source here
  • Add lead section.
  • Resolve comments.

Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 21:17, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

@Ceranthor: Figured that the article might be ready for a prose rewrite as I've added most information now. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 21:00, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
​ Sounds good. I'll prioritize that today. Sorry I wasn't much help on the content addition; you had already gotten most of them! ;) ceranthor 13:29, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
Are you planning to use the "Wernke2009" ref? ceranthor 13:45, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
Probably yes, it's one of the few sources that discusses the reaction Spanish authorities had to the Huaynaputina eruption. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:47, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
A few sources that will need to be incorporated: http://www.muniomate.gob.pe/index.php/historia/3-historia, http://ficha.sigmincetur.mincetur.gob.pe/index.aspx?cod_Ficha=1879, http://www.leyes.congreso.gob.pe/Documentos/2016_2021/Dictamenes/Proyectos_de_Ley/00652DC05MAY20170627.pdf, https://www.inei.gob.pe/media/MenuRecursivo/publicaciones_digitales/Est/Lib1637/libro.pdf, http://www.cienciactiva.gob.pe/resoluciones/subidos/sintesis/rd%20114-2016-fondecyt-de.pdf, http://www.cunamas.gob.pe/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/RDE_520-2018-MIDIS-PNCM.pdf and https://www.ceplan.gob.pe/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/Riesgos-y-oportunidades-CEPLAN.pdf. I may handle these this evening. As for prose and comments, I can't work on them any earlier than the weekend, if that. Reading through all the sources was tiring. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 07:18, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

​ I've just resolved most comments and put much of the article text in a final form - minus a few INGEMMET sources that are currently 404ing and a couple of sources at WP:RX that I'll look for on Wednesday - so only these things remain:

  • A proper lead section.
  • Some proper images.
  • Copyedits and prose quality.
  • Some sources need comments:
    • [1] and [2]: Do we want to discuss prophecies in the article?
    • I have been wondering whether this is a bit too specific.
    • [3], [4] and [5]: Do we want more details on the societal response?
    • [6]: This is the third substantial source on the "Huayanaputina flood" topic; I am wondering whether to wait for the Cambridge sources before using it.
    • [7]: Is this a book or a review of a book?
    • [8]: I am not entirely certain that this is a reliable source, but if it is I'll include something from it.
    • [9] (first PDF): Been wondering if a statement like "X hydrothermal source originates in rocks from Y volcano" especially since the associated map looks like it fits Ticsani better.

It seems like INGEMMET now works again so I'll be processing it. I was thinking that you might want to comment on the sources listed above and perhaps handle the prose and lead sections, while I handle the additions from unused sources and the images. What say you? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:32, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

Yup, I'll look through these today and try to start working on the prose today or tomorrow. ceranthor 19:01, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

​
    • 1/2 - I think 1 is worth including (only a sentence); can't read 2 because my German is very limited.
    • Think the perchlorate bit is worth noting, even if just in one/two sentences.
    • Might be more suited for a specific article on the 1600 eruption, which I think is the logical next step of this collaboration if you're up for the work (perhaps I can do more of the research work if so, since you did nearly all of it for this).
    • Doesn't look like there's too much about Huaynapiutina in the flood topic article you linked, so I think it's fine to use now. Maybe I missed something though.
    • Don't have access to the Brill database but looks like a review to me.
    • El Peruano appears to be a major newspaper.
    • Could you clarify what you mean by the "X...Y" bit? ceranthor 17:27, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
By the way, finishing Blue Lake Crater took a bit longer than anticipated, so I won't have time today. But I'll try to work on writing/revising prose tomorrow, and happy to expand with some of the above sources if you're fine with using them. ceranthor 17:32, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
OK then, I'll apply these sources as I don't have anything else on the table ATM (Meers fault - or Meers Fault, I guess - has turned out to be a much bigger topic than I thought, too much for my workdays).
  • Regarding Might be more suited for a specific article on the 1600 eruption - see, I did expand Huaynaputina with the understanding that this page is also about the 1600 eruption as that event is the main reason for the volcano's notability. So for now I think the content should be put in here; maybe later there will be a case for a split.
  • I'll post-pone the flood stuff for after Wednesday; maybe it turns out all info is in the Cambridge sources.
  • The "X...Y" bit is that the source describes a geothermal field associated with Huaynaputina. Problem is that this map suggests the field is on the eastern side of the Rio Tambo, where Ticsani lies - Huaynaputina is on the western side.

​Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:01, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

@Jo-Jo Eumerus: Great - I'm going to work through and copyedit today. ceranthor 13:24, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
@Jo-Jo Eumerus: Didn't end up accomplishing very much, but going to try tomorrow/Thursday to really thoroughly copyedit prose. ceranthor 21:40, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
@Ceranthor: OK. I might add some more text today as I can go grab some additional sources today. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 07:33, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
@Jo-Jo Eumerus: Leaving notes for you as I go: see [10], [11] (potentially more to come...) ceranthor 13:31, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
@Ceranthor: Resolved some. These Formations appear to be formed by one or more ignimbrites, so your interpretation is correct. We cannot however identify how many ignimbrites are there. "Hosts" is the correct term; it's not clear that the composite volcano that Huaynaputina is associated with is anything more than a volcano that Huaynaputina coincidentally formed in. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 14:28, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
@Jo-Jo Eumerus:I just worry that "host" has a certain anthropomorphic quality associated with it - though I wonder if "houses" would really mark any improvement. ceranthor 14:32, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
More notes: [12] ceranthor 14:40, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
@Ceranthor:I can see why, but then since the article is meant to be read by specimens of Homo sapiens sapiens first and foremost I think it's apt. Regarding Importance to the volcano's eruptive history? Unclear in context, and don't want to assume what you intended here The section discusses how the sulfur yield - an important criterium when discussing climate effects of volcanoes - came to pass.

Take note that I did receive some additional sources (probably not much more material, though), so I may expand the article a little bit more today. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:02, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

@Jo-Jo Eumerus: That's fine; I'll keep track. Re: the "importance" comment, it still doesn't state that in the text (the importance being climate effects), hence my confusion. ceranthor 16:01, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
Trying to figure out a way to replace "amphitheatre" where it's mentioned three times in close proximity under "Fumaroles and hot springs." Let me know if you have any ideas. ceranthor 16:32, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
@Jo-Jo Eumerus: Also, here's another quick note: [13] ceranthor 16:35, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
Another note. ceranthor 17:29, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
Sorry, but I don't know about a synonym for amphitheatre either. Regarding the notes, GVP does not specify what "fissure eruption" means, for the hot springs, yes Cerro Reventado and Ullucan. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 18:51, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
@Jo-Jo Eumerus: Checking in - still expanding? Haven't touched the lower half of the article yet, but have some time today. ceranthor 17:22, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
@Ceranthor: No, pretty much done expanding here. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:08, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
@Jo-Jo Eumerus: Great, working on it now. Another note: [14]. ceranthor 19:40, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
Another two notes: [15]. ceranthor 20:08, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
I think I got them. Parking this source here as it has some information on Jesuits and animals that may be of reader interest. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 18:40, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
@Jo-Jo Eumerus: Any interest in putting the sulfuric acid estimates into a table rather than bullets? ceranthor 14:43, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
@Ceranthor:A table is fine. I generally do not add tables myself as the PITA that is reference formatting puts me off of any measure that requires complicated formatting, but there is no issue with someone else adding them. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:46, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
@Jo-Jo Eumerus: Added it and should finish copyediting the impact sections today. Are we planning to send this to GAN first? I don't think it's close to FA level yet (needs some cleaning, more images, and further discussion about whether or not to separate out the 1600-specific info), so PR may be jumping the gun a bit. ceranthor 18:23, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
I dunno, I've got a lot of open GANs going already, including one (African humid period) under review at the moment. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:48, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
@Ceranthor: Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:39, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
@Jo-Jo Eumerus: I think I have time to respond to comments. Only one other GAN open, and the Newberry FAC has been fairly calm so far. ceranthor 12:37, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
@Ceranthor:Sure, if you want to send this to GAN first before FAC that's fine. Out of curiosity, since I've been working on Coropuna a while ago: Do you think it'd be ready for FAC? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:46, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
@Jo-Jo Eumerus: Lemme read through in a bit. Wanted to read through impact once more. ceranthor 15:51, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
@Jo-Jo Eumerus: I think it's in great shape. I agree that it could probably use a close reading for grammar/typos (haven't looked closely enough to see if it demands close copyediting for the prose or not), but I am happy to help out with fine-tuning it pre-FAC if that's your end-goal. Let me know once the GA reassessment finishes and we can go from there. And I'm happy to take care of the GAN here; you've done the overwhelming majority of the work here, so I think it's the least I can do. ceranthor 17:27, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
@Jo-Jo Eumerus: Updates: 1. make sure you go through and check to see if we still need to work on any of the notes you hid throughout the article 2. didn't want to tweak without asking first, but the bits with "1601 Japan" or similar constructions seem a little stiff/old English-y to me 3. we still need a lead; happy to write it once we are certain we're happy with the article body being comprehensive ceranthor 18:33, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
@Ceranthor: #1 got most of the comments, some of the remaining need your opinion #2 I am not sure if there is a better wording, English is not my first language #3 yes we still need a lead section. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:14, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
@Jo-Jo Eumerus: For the "1601 country" bits, I can fix them, but want to clarify if there dates for all of the mentions in the first paragraph of the Europe subsection (" Tree ring analysis suggested cooling in Greece,[222] Lapland (Finland)[223] " - these don't dates). Will also need to revert some of my comma changes per the MOS guide on quotation commas. Also, there are still a few hidden comments, are you still addressing some of them? And I can write the lead once I fix those issues. ceranthor 14:28, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

@Ceranthor: Some of these have dates (Greece is 1601, for example). Regarding the remaining comments, on some I need your opinion. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:40, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

@Jo-Jo Eumerus: Got it. Looking thru the five hidden comments: 1. Think the climate effects are fine as their own section; stylistic choice as to whether to shift them to individual sections. I think I prefer what you've done as a general overview section. 2. Tricky, since Russia spans Europe and Asia. Think it functions better as is. 3. A brief inclusion about recommendations (no more than one paragraph) wouldn't be awful 4. Marsilli, María N. (2011). Volcanes locuaces e inextinguible fuego interior: la erupción del Huaynaputina en 1600 en la narrativa jesuítica. pp. 265–290. ISBN 978-84-7290-526-9 – via works.bepress.com. {{cite book}}: |journal= ignored (help); Invalid |ref=harv (help)CS1 maint: date and year (link) - are you including this source? 5. Why hide the accessdate? ceranthor 15:47, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
@Ceranthor:Agree on #1 and #2. #3 actioned, needs better wording probably. Regarding #4 it's accessible here; some of that information is already in the article and I am not sure if any of the rest is worth including. #5 The accessdates were there before I started to write the article. I wonder if we still need that section. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:23, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
@Jo-Jo Eumerus: Three things left to do - 1. that book I mentioned above still doesn't appear to be used in the article 2. will work on standardizing author names to be full first name, middle initial(s), last name rather than some using initials and some not 3. Will write a lead at some point this weekend ceranthor 18:22, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
Seems like the ping didn't work, but this source (the book) I'll look at it today or tomorrow. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 18:55, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
@Jo-Jo Eumerus: Gimme a shout when you fix that. Standardized ref names where possible (couldn't find Nischuk or LA Jara). Just the lead left. ceranthor 17:32, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
That expansion part is done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 17:46, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
@Jo-Jo Eumerus: Expanded the lead. Feel free to tweak as you see fit. When you think it's fine, I'm happy to nominate this at GAN if you would like. ceranthor 22:19, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
@Ceranthor: I've altered the lead a bit, since the old text sounded a bit out of flow with the new lead; do you think some more focus on the climate effects and historiography would be warranted? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:31, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
@Jo-Jo Eumerus: Personally, I wouldn't add much more detail since the article is about the volcano itself rather than the eruption. If we do, though, I think no more than two more sentences for the second paragraph in the lead would be fine. Let me know if you're dead-set on this; I have no strong feelings either way. ceranthor 12:45, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
The thing about the eruption is that this volcano is mainly known for its eruption in 1600; had it not happened it would be just one of many almost unknown Peruvian volcanoes without historical eruptions akin to Casiri (Tacna) and would almost certainly not have enough material for a decent article. So I think the lead has to give prominent voice to the eruption, and by the same token there is little point in having a volcano article separated from an article on the 1600 eruption. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:44, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
@Jo-Jo Eumerus: Got it.Feel free to add more climate effects/historiography or whatever else you may want to expand in the lead. After that, give me a ping, and I'll be happy to nominate at GAN/address comments as they arise. ceranthor 15:53, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

@Ceranthor: Did a last update from the article text; I think it's now ready for GAN. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:36, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

Recent restoration of some edits

Latest comment: 5 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

​​Specifically, this edit. Does someone have access to that source? I was asking because its citation format is different from the old-new one. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:10, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

Jo-Jo Eumerus, the source is as far as I know complete. Its just a matter of formating rather than missing information. Mamayuco (talk) 15:56, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

Translated into russian, it sounds like "fuck Putin" or "dick on Putin".

Latest comment: 4 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

surprising coincidence that this name is associated with the Russian dictator— Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.23.240.4 (talk • contribs)

It probably isn't; the volcano bore this name long before Putin was born. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 21:09, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

Yes, the name of the volcano appeared earlier, but in the russian Wikipedia the correct spelling (of the volcano) was removed so that it would not be associated with Putin. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.23.69.31 (talk) 09:40, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

I think that it would be right to point out this moment. Famous Russian journalist Dmitry Bykov bought a trinket with a very accurate image of Putin and a calendar with the image of Putin to throw them into the volcano mouth. The journalist explained that this was done to expel Putin from the Kremlin. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.23.69.31 (talk) 09:46, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

Um, actually, per WP:NOTFORUM this would not be the right place for this. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 11:42, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

Splinter eruption

Latest comment: 4 years ago5 comments2 people in discussion

Content on the 1600 eruption is so abundant and an important topic on itself that a new article called 1600 eruption of Huaynaputina may be worth creating. Any thoughts? I hope this does not interfere with Good Article nomination. Mamayuco (talk) 09:41, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

My thinking is that the noteworthiness of the volcano stems mostly from the eruption, so I would oppose a split. That, and I don't think the presentation of the topic is improved by splitting it. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 11:42, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
With or without the eruption Hueinaputina is still a sizable volcanic complex. More than half of the sections deal with the eruption or ots concequences. Yet, splitting the eruption off will still leave much content to include in the Haynaputina article. Just like there are separate articles for Mount St. Helens and 1980 eruption of Mount St. Helens there could be separate ones for H. and 1600 eruption of Huaynaputina. Mamayuco (talk) 18:15, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
Still, I am not convinced that the presentation is better if one has to read two pages rather than one. I am dubious that people would read the volcano article primarily for the volcano. I don't think the article is overly long, either. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:42, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
I am not sure if the sole goal is to be to maximize the number of readers. To have clear-cut and "streamlined" articles is also good for an encyclopedia. Currently I am of the opinion that the 1600 eruption material overshadows the subject of the volcano including topics such a previous eruptions, Holocene and Pleistocene geology and edifice architecture. —Mamayuco (talk) 16:43, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

GA Review

Latest comment: 4 years ago23 comments3 people in discussion
GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Huaynaputina/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Daß Wölf (talk · contribs) 14:47, 9 September 2019 (UTC)


Hello, I'll be reviewing this article. I'll start the review today or tomorrow. Daß Wölf 14:47, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

Review

Congratulations on writing this excellent and informative article! Apologies for the wait, I'm fairly busy in real life at the moment, so I won't be able to complete the review in one go. The suggestions may be a bit haphazard since I'm not reading it in top to bottom order as I actually came across this article several months ago.

  • Is there a reason for having both {{refn}} and {{efn}} footnotes? Considering there're three of them total I suggest merging.
  • "... magma — known as "Dacite 1" — into ..." and others - per MOS:DASH these should be spaced ndashes or unspaced mdashes
  • "The researchers recommended more extensive seismometer coverage of the area and regular sampling of fumaroles, as well as reconnaissance of georadar and self potential of the volcano." - Does "self potential" refer to spontaneous potential?
  • The foreign words in the Name sectionshould be italicised and not in quotes per MOS:WORDSASWORDS and MOS:FOREIGNITALIC.
  • "Ash fall was also reported in an area of 300,000 km2 (120,000 sq mi) across Peru, Chile and Bolivia mostly west and south from the volcano, including in La Paz,[13] Lima, Cuzco, Camana where it was thick enough to cause palm trees to collapse, Potosi, Arica as well as in Lima where it was accompanied by sounds of explosions" - Lima is mentioned twice
  • "Despite the damage, in Arequipa recovery was fast." - suggest: "Despite the damage, recovery was fast in Arequipa."
    • "The city of Arequipa went from being a relatively wealthy city to be a place of famine and disease in the years after the eruption. Despite the damage, in Arequipa recovery was fast." - a timespan for the fast recovery would be useful, these sentences seem to contradict each other right now
  • "In Arequipa, a new patron saint, San Genaro, was named after the eruption and veneration of Martha — who was believed to have power over earthquakes — increased; she became the city's sole patron saint in 1693." - suggest rewording; this is a bit of a garden path sentence, San Genaro didn't get his name due to the eruption and the veneration of Martha  
  • "... mythology held that the lack of sacrifices had upset the devil and had sent a large snake ..." - is "devil, who had sent ..." meant?
Made these tweaks so far, except for the endashes and the italics. I think the article already uses endashes with spaces - isn't that the correct way? And I am not a fan of italicizing foreign words, since I think it others foreign words. I did remove the quotation marks though. I also do not know the answer to the contradictory sentences. Jo-Jo Eumerus - do you happen to remember the details there? ceranthor 03:18, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
From memory, it's a distinction between the city recovering quickly and the whole region taking longer.
Also, Ceranthor, I don't think that the {{efn}} notes should have been merged into the reference section; they are not citations, but explanatory supplements. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 06:02, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
@Jo-Jo Eumerus: Happy to restore them - but did you want to keep it exactly as is? Because only one of them was in the "nb/note" format as they were; the other two were formatted like regular references. ceranthor 12:52, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
I've restored them; the purpose of having them was to explain stuff that would break the flow if put in text, which is a different purpose from that of a reference. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:36, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
@Ceranthor and Jo-Jo Eumerus: Again sorry for the wait. Re: efn/refn I meant to choose just one of these, i.e. change the sole refn into an efn, or change the efns into refns. Re: endashes, those were actually emdashes, I've changed them to spaced endashes. Daß Wölf 19:55, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
{{convert}}
  • I've changed a number of {{convert}} templates to use the abbreviated form ({{cvt}}), and substituted text such as 0.5 km by smaller units. IME depictions of "0.x" quantities of large metric units are rarely seen except in ranges (as in e.g. 0.3-2.7 km). Feel free to revert as you see fit, especially the abbreviated forms. I think they look more neat but IMO they don't matter for the "well written" criterion.
  • Re: forms such as "18-metre thick" - per MOS:HYPHEN either two hyphens should be used (e.g. "18-metre-thick (59 ft)", {{convert|18|m|ft|adj=mid|-thick}}) or IMO writing "18 m (59 ft) thick" would also be fine.
  • "The impact was also noticeable in Arequipa, where up to 0.98 metres (3.2 ft) of ash fell ..." - This looks like the author of the book probably encountered a figure of 1 m in research and converted it to 3.2 ft. (Besides, is it feasible to differentiate between a 98 cm and a 100 cm ashfall?) If that's the case then it would be better to use "1 m (3.2 ft)" or "up to a metre (3.2 ft)".
  • I've changed "120 kilometres (75 mi)[1]-130 kilometres (81 mi) away" to "120[1]–130 km (75–81 mi) away". It might be useful to repeat the ref in the following sentence next to "130", assuming that's the one supporting this figure.
  • Recommend linking the first appearance of "tons" in the table to metric ton (assuming that's what the researches were using) to avoid confusion with short/long ton.
  • "The springs have temperatures of about 22.8–75.4 °C" - sounds rather specific for "about". How about "ranging from 22.8 to 75.4 °C (73.0–167.7 °F)"?
  • "1.94 W/m2" - feel free to change this to "watts per square metre" if that's what you prefer. I've removed the convert template as I don't think I've ever seen an imperial unit used for Earth's insolation. Daß Wölf 18:55, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
Got all of these. I'm not sure about the ref repetition; could you chime in on that one, Jo-Jo Eumerus? ceranthor 00:31, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
Um, sorry, @Ceranthor:, which ref repetition? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 14:13, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
I presume the fourth bullet point - to be more specific: "Flooding ensued when volcanic dams in the Río Tambo broke,[80] and debris[166] and lahars reached the Pacific Ocean 120[1]–130 km (75–81 mi) away. Occasionally the flows that reached the Pacific Ocean have been described as pyroclastic flows.[167]". If the [167] ref is the source for the 130 km figure, IMO it would be prudent to add it directly to the figure (ie. "120[1]–130[167] km") to avoid losing it if the sentences get rearranged in the future. Daß Wölf 22:38, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
Given how densely packed the references are already, I am not convinced that this would be a good move. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:45, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
OK. Daß Wölf 13:51, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
Second round
  • Río Tambo appears to use the diacritic (per es:Río Tambo (Moquegua)).
  • "There volcanic activity has since the Jurassic moved from the present-day coast region ..." - I believe there's a comma missing at "There,"
  • "During the Tertiary, these were overlaid by a total of 0.3–0.5 kilometres (0.19–0.31 mi) ignimbritic Capillune, Llallahui[8] and Sencca Formations." / "During the Tertiary, these were overlaid by a total of 300–500 m (0.2–0.3 mi) ignimbritic Capillune, Llallahui[8] and Sencca Formations." - it seems to me there's a word missing here, I'd rather write e.g. "300-500 m of ignimbritic..." or "300-500 metres thick ignimbritic" or even "300-500-metre ignimbritic" (although the latter sound a little awkward)
  • "Between 4,000–5,000 metres (13,000–16,000 ft) elevation ..." - suggest changing to "... of elevation" or "... in elevation"
  • "the Pastillo volcanic complex developed in the form of 0.5-kilometre (0.3 mi) thick andesitic rocks." - suggest "... of half a kilometre (0.3 mi) thick" or perhaps better, "... of half-a-kilometre-thick (0.3 mi) ..."
  • "There have been no eruptions since 1600; a report of an eruption in 1667 is unsubstantiated/unclear owing to the sparse historical information and probably reflects an eruption at Ubinas instead." - please reword per MOS:SLASH
  • "In 1962, there were reportedly no fumaroles within the amphitheatre, though presently fumaroles occur in the amphitheatre close to the three vents." - suggest rewording to "as of 2001" or "as of early 21th century" or a something else per MOS:DATED
  • "The eruption was accompanied by intense earthquakes, deafening explosions and noises that could be heard thousands of kilometres away, as far as Lima." - Can you check with the source here? Lima is only ≈800 km from Huaynaputina.
  • "tephrochronology marker" → "tephrochronological marker"
  • "The climate impact has been noted in the growth rings of a centuries-old ocean quahog, a mollusc that was found somewhere in Iceland ..." - The sentence is somewhat ambiguous. I presume it means this particular mollusc was found (somewhere) in Iceland, right?
    Rewrote this a bit. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:45, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
  • "In the Andes however, the Little Ice Age ..." - MOS:HOWEVER
  • Are there any numerical estimates for the death toll?
Should have gotten all of these except the question about the explosions as far as Lima and the estimates for the death toll. Do you know if the sources clarify or mention those two issues, respectively, Jo-Jo Eumerus? Also, pinging Daß Wölf to take a look at the progress. ceranthor 23:27, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
@Ceranthor and Daß Wölf:Resolved the explosions thing but there is actually a death toll cited within the article. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:48, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
@Jo-Jo Eumerus and Ceranthor: RE: death toll - yes, there it is of course, sorry about that. No idea how it managed to slip past me... Re: progress, I'm satisfied with the changes, it seems to me that only the quahog and the 120[1]-130 item in the {{convert}} round remain. Daß Wölf 22:38, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
Good Article review progress box
Criteria: 1a. prose ( ) 1b. MoS ( ) 2a. ref layout ( ) 2b. cites WP:RS ( ) 2c. no WP:OR ( ) 2d. no WP:CV ( )
3a. broadness ( ) 3b. focus ( ) 4. neutral ( ) 5. stable ( ) 6a. free or tagged images ( ) 6b. pics relevant ( )
Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked   are unassessed
|}

I think that should cover it. Pinging nominator @Ceranthor: Daß Wölf 11:50, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

@Daß Wölf: Actually, Jo-Jo Eumerus wrote the vast majority of this article. I will be happy to work on these this weekend though. ceranthor 20:37, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
@Ceranthor:Thanks for proposing to work on this. I'll be hammering away at Quelccaya Ice Cap so I won't have much time to act on this GA review. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:06, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

That's all then, passing the nom. Thank you for the hard work on the article and the review, Jo-Jo Eumerus and Ceranthor! Daß Wölf 13:51, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

P.S. it was a pretty interesting read, I suggest nominating it for DYK. Daß Wölf 13:55, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

Unfortunately, according to the WP:DYKRULES articles such as this one which have appeared in the Wikipedia:On this day section are ineligible. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:59, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

Pre-FAC preparatory work

Latest comment: 3 years ago41 comments4 people in discussion
So, since Quelccaya Ice Cap is now at Featured article candidates, it's time for me to prepare this article for FAC as well.

I've done the end-of-year update here and there are some questions to answer here:

  1. Whether the references to Huaynaputina here ought to be mentioned in the article.
  2. Whether to mention the impact that 17th century climate change had on whaling, but Huaynaputina is only mentioned as one cause among several.
  3. Whether to use this source to expand on the "snake" myth.
  4. I am a bit uneasy with mentioning "USA" in an article about a volcanic event that occurred before the establishment of the USA, but I worry that using "North America" is less precise.
Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 11:30, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
  1. Not impressed with the nuevomundo open edition.
  2. I cannot access the second paper, but seems like something you may be get called on if you leave out.
  3. Again, no access, but anything you can add to the dry volcanology will be of interest!
  4. causing floods in the Southwestern United States. ... causing floods in what is now the Southwestern United States.
Will start reviewing little by little. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:01, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

SG review

  • Remember to add the |trans-title= parameter on foreign language sources to provide the title of the article translated to English.
  • See the example at the bottom of this section on my userpage to check the accessibility of the table: User talk:SandyGeorgia#To do ... step through the steps as RexxS did for about six diffs ...
  • There are some duplinks, but I think they are justifiable.
  • Excess detail for the lead? at a rate of 10.3 centimetres per year (4.1 in/year) ... ??
  • The vents of Huaynaputina form a north-northwest–south-southeast trend. --> The vents of Huaynaputina trend form the north-northwest to the south-southeast ... ??

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:35, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

Used the snake source, the whale one (but for climate - I am not certain the whale thing is closely enough connected) and did the USA changes. The table thing did not work but the lead edits are in. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 11:16, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

I suggest completely re-writing the second paragraph of the lead. It starts with a sentence that has faulty punctuation/grammar, and never gets better.

  • The volcano erupted several times during the Holocene, the largest eruption took place in the year 1600. The 1600 eruption was the largest historical eruption in South America, measuring 6 on the Volcanic Explosivity Index. It occurred on 19 February and continued with a series of events into March. Witnessed by the people of the city of Arequipa, its impact in the region was severe, wiping out vegetation and burying the surroundings with 2 metres (6.6 ft) of volcanic rock; it also damaged infrastructure and economic resources. The eruption had significant effects on Earth's climate, decreasing temperatures in the Northern Hemisphere, causing floods, famines and cold waves in numerous places, and depositing several million tons of acid. The climate disruption caused social upheaval in many countries such as Russia and may have played a role in the onset of the Little Ice Age.
Suggestion:
  • During the Holocene, Huaynaputina has erupted several times, including on 19 February 1600 – the largest ever in South America. Witnessed by people in the city of Arequipa, this eruption measured 6 on the Volcanic Explosivity Index and continued with a series of events into March. Its impact on the region was severe. It wiped out vegetation, buried the surrounding area with 2 metres (6.6 ft) of volcanic rock and damaged infrastructure and economic resources. The eruption had significant effects on Earth's climate; temperatures in the Northern Hemisphere decreased, and millions of tons of acid were deposited. Floods, famines and cold waves resulted in numerous places. The climate disruption caused social upheaval in countries as far away as Russia and may have played a role in the onset of the Little Ice Age.

Third para of lead:

  • Huaynaputina has not erupted since 1600. Today there are fumaroles in Huaynaputina's amphitheatre, and hot springs occur in the region, some of which have been associated with Huaynaputina. The volcano lies in a remote region, where there is little human activity. Still, there are about 30,000 people living in the surrounding area, with another 1 million in the Arequipa metropolitan area. If Huaynaputina underwent a similar eruption to its 1600 event, it would likely lead to a significantly higher death toll and cause substantial socioeconomic disruption. The Peruvian Geophysical Institute announced in 2017 that Huaynaputina would be monitored by the future Southern Volcanological Observatory.
Suggestion (obviously a modern eruption would lead to a significantly higher death toll because population is higher ... there is some redundancy):
  • Huaynaputina has not erupted since 1600. There are fumaroles in its amphitheatre, and hot springs occur in the region, some of which have been associated with Huaynaputina. The volcano lies in a remote region, where there is little human activity. Still, there are about 30,000 people living in the surrounding area, with another 1 million in the Arequipa metropolitan area. If an eruption similar to the 1600 event occurred, it would likely lead to a high death toll and cause substantial socioeconomic disruption. The Peruvian Geophysical Institute announced in 2017 that Huaynaputina would be monitored by the Southern Volcanological Observatory.
  • I copy edited Name and the first section of Geography, so will stop now to allow you to repair anything I messed up.
    Both rewrites seem OK to me, including the one here Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:58, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
    OK, I will keep going.
    Re-reading it, I an not sure the north-northwest to south-southeast trend sentence is worthy of the lead ... wonder if something else significant and of interest to the general reader might go to the lead instead. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:10, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

Moving on, revert anything you wish:

  • The terrain west of the volcano is formed by the high plateau ... I don't understand why this can't say "is a high plateau" or "consists of" or "contains" ... I don't know what "formed by" means.

Done with Geography, stopping there for now so you can check and repair as needed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:13, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

Removed these. Regarding the amphitheatre, isn't it better to put the measures first? I'll continue tomorrow as the last update run has exhausted me. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 21:27, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
I'm not sure which instance you mean, but when we say x-meter-wide (y miles) and a-meter-deep (b miles) amphitheatre, the whole construct (x-meter-wide) is modifying amphitheatre and we need an extra hyphen, which is why I moved the measurements after. Please change anything I do as you wish. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:07, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
Well, in my personal opinion removing the extra hyphen isn't worth the extra verbiage, but it's, well, a personal opinion. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:44, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
You should ALWAYS feel free to undo anything I mess up :0 Continuing ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:27, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
Nothing worth reverting so far. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 20:40, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
Geology
  • Links ? Cretaceous sediments and Paleogene–Neogene ...
    Already there, farther up. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 20:40, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Why the quotes? as the "Dacite 1" rocks erupted early during the 1600 event were more buoyant and contained more gas and thus drove a Plinian eruption, while the latter "Dacite 2" rocks were more viscous (what are these things ... I don't understand most of this section :) They are talked about in again in the next sentence, but it would be good to get a definition of dacite 1 and dacite 2 up front.
    That's going to be a problem because the definitional sources are out of sectional order. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 20:40, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Their formation may be stimulated by the entry of mafic magmas into the magmatic system ... may have been stimulated?
    Done.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 20:40, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Wikilink? petrological analysis indicates that ...
    Added. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 20:40, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
  • a more recent viewpoint argues that the entry of new ... a viewpoint since year X argues that ... (MOS:RECENT, be specific)
    Corrected. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 20:40, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
  • triggered the 1600 eruption; furthermore movement of deep andesitic magmas --> triggered the 1600 eruption and that movement of deep andesitic magmas ???
    I don't think that's exactly covered within the "more recent viewpoint" since the viewpoints disagree about the eruption trigger not necessarily the earthquake trigger. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 20:40, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

Stopping there for now; will continue with Eruption history. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:27, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

OK, doing a bit more now ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:58, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
Eruption history
  • The existence of a volcano at Huaynaputina was not recognized before the 1600 eruption ... this seems to express a lot of certainty about what was known 500 years ago ? was not recorded ... ? No record of the existence ... exists? ... with no record of eruptions existing ? no record of eruptions known or found? Is it not possible that the ancient knew of them but records have been erased? Perhaps ...
  • Because no record of a volcano or eruption at Huaynaputina before the 1600 eruption has been found (other than fumarolic activity), the 1600 eruption is referred to as an instance of monogenetic volcanism.
    This is what the source says Apparently, no individual volcano had been locallyrecognized at the site of the 1600 eruption prior tothat date and the pre-1600 topography is described asªa low ridge in the center of a Sierraº I am not sure how much certainty we should infer from it. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:14, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
  • But then this is contradictory ... However, the last eruption may have preceded 1600 by several centuries, ... how about ...
  • Another possibility is that there may have been an eruption several centuries before 1600, because native people reportedly offered sacrifices to the mountain such as birds, personal clothing and sheep. It is known, however, that non-volcanic mountains were offered sacrifices in southern Peru. There have been no eruptions since 1600. A report of an eruption in 1667 is unsubstantiated and unclear owing to the sparse historical information; it probably reflects instead an eruption at Ubinas.
  • I am not understanding this ... the second part seems to contradict the first, so whatever distinction is being made, I am missing it ... In 1962, there were reportedly no fumaroles within the amphitheatre,[81] though fumaroles occur in the amphitheatre close to the three vents

Stopping there, next 1600 eruption, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:07, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

  • This will be hard to formulate. Gleaning from the sources, it seems like the usual interpretation among scientists is that there are no recorded pre-1600 eruptions and that the population there was unaware of the volcanic nature of Huaynaputina until 1600. Geological evidence has been used to infer much older activity but it's far from clear that anyone would have noticed it, and it certainly wasn't recorded. The toponyms and sacrifices may imply that folks knew of its activity before but that's questionable at best. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:14, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
    could you do something to resolve the apparent contradiction? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:59, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
    Did the best that is possible. The part about sacrifices needs to be in the ambiguous formulation since Thouret's and Navarro's claims are contradicted by de Silva 2000 and Inka human sacrifices are definitively not limited to volcanoes. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:04, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

1600 eruption

  • Based on historical records, Huaynaputina's eruption commenced on 16 February 1600 (following earthquakes that began on the 15th), with the earliest signs of the impending eruption perhaps in December 1599. The duration of the eruption is not well constrained but may have lasted up to 12–19 hours. The event ended on 6 March with ash fall; the air was clear of ash from the eruption on 2 April 1600. Some reports of late ash falls may be due to wind-transported ash, and there are no deposits from a supposed eruption in August 1600; such reports may refer to mudflows or explosions in pyroclastic flows.
Suggestion --> (I do not know what the word constrained wants to mean here ... a better word is needed ... defined ?
  • Historical records indicate that Huaynaputina began erupting on 16 February 1600, a day after earthquakes began. There may have been early signs of the impending eruption in December 1599. The eruption may have lasted between 12 and 19 hours, but this is not well defined. The event ended on 6 March with ash fall and the air was clear of ash by 2 April 1600. Some reports of late ash falls may have been related to wind-transported ash. There are no deposits from a supposed eruption in August 1600; such reports may refer to mudflows or explosions in pyroclastic flows.
"Constrained" means that we don't have enough parameters to clearly narrow down the range. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:13, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
  • At first, the eruption of 1600 was attributed to Ubinas volcano and sometimes also to El Misti. Priests observed and recorded the eruption from Arequipa, and the friar Antonio Vázquez de Espinosa wrote a second-hand account of the eruption based on a witness's report from Arequipa. The scale of the eruption and of its climate impact have been determined thanks to information from historical records, tree ring data, the position of glaciers, the thickness of speleothems and ice, plant flowering times, wine harvests and coral growth.
Suggestion -->
  • The eruption of 1600 was initially attributed to Ubinas volcano and sometimes to El Misti. Priests observed and recorded the eruption from Arequipa, and the friar Antonio Vázquez de Espinosa wrote a second-hand account of the eruption based on a witness's report from Arequipa. The scale of the eruption and its impact on climate have been determined from historical records, tree ring data, the position of glaciers, the thickness of speleothems and ice, plant flowering times, wine harvests and coral growth.
That's in. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:13, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
Prelude
  • These definitions of Dacite 1 and Dacite 2 need to be moved up to first occurrence. Why are they in quotes? I struggle to understand what this says. ... It is possible that the entry of new magma – known as "Dacite 1" – into a magmatic system containing a magma entity known as "Dacite 2" triggered the eruption by pressurizing the system until magma started ascending to the surface.
  • --> The eruption may have been triggered when new, Dacite 1 magma entered into a system containing Dacite 2 magma and pressurized the system, causing magma to begin ascending to the surface.
The problem with moving them up is that they are mainly defined in their role in the eruption sequence, which is a lower section. "Dacite 1" and "Dacite 2" are informal names, hence the quotes. Your rewrite is clearer; it's in. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:13, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
Second pyroclastic stage
  • After a hiatus the volcano began erupting ... some idea of the time frame of this hiatus? Hours, days, weeks?
    Two days, according to Adams p.503 and p.501. It's in their section headers so I am not sure how dependable it is. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:13, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
  • How can ash fall interrupt pyroclastic flows? Is interrupt the intended word? Interspersed?
    "Intercalated" is probably the right word; "interspersed" implies a chaotic mix which isn't what happened here. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:13, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
Third Vulcanian stage

Later, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:28, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

  • It is not apparent to me why this sentence is where it is, or what those five are? The sentence leaves me hanging ... Stratigraphically, the eruption deposits have been subdivided into five formations.
    I think it's mostly because there was no better place for it. I've moved it up; perhaps it fits better elsewhere. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 21:25, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
  • This appears to be a contradiction ... more detail to understand the distinction is needed, since we have been told Huay is the largest in history ... another large Holocene eruption in the Central Andes which exceeded Huaynaputina's in size ...
    "Historical period" here does not include the middle Holocene. AFAIK only in China, Egypt or the Middle East would a 4.2 ka eruption be considered "historical" i.e in a time where humans would have recorded it. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 21:25, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
    Jo-Jo, I do not revisit these, as they are only my queries and suggestions ... I leave it to you to figure out how to sort for the next reader ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:41, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

Will continue from Local impact, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:52, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

I take that this is still not ready? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:11, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
Jo-Jo, we still have lots to do. My back spasms have finally remitted, but I am traveling now, and have a medical app't on Monday the 15th. I hope to get some work done on Sunday, if not Tuesday. So sorry for the delay :( SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:50, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Second attempt

So, per Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Huaynaputina/archive1 it looks like this article needs some work on its prose before it's FAC-ready - mostly overly technical writing and sentences constrained by the citation style. AhmadLX and Femkemilene, do you think you can help here? Sandy also suggested that I ask Iridescent, Fowler&fowler and ComplexRational. I've seen the suggestion to bundle the citations more, but that should probably wait until after any content review is done as bundled citations can double the amount of work to address content issues. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:24, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

Jo-Jo, I’m trying my hardest to get others to start regularly using and reviewing Template:FAC peer review sidebar. What do you think about adding it there for a more coordinated approach? It helps me go through my ToDo list to prioritize what is over there, and it would help other FACs if more people would watchlist that template. PS, I am in the midst right now of a rather huge off-Wiki data collecting effort, so my time is limited. Bst, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:31, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
I'd like to prioritise some article writing myself, and hopefully organizing an the 2021 WP:Core contest. Prose is not my forte anyway. FemkeMilene (talk) 20:32, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
I'd really like to help out as well, and feel free to ping me again if a new major edit/PR/FAC gets underway, though I'm extremely pressed for time due to RL work and I haven't been able to do much editing at all recently. I can answer a few specific prose questions here and there if they come up, but I don't foresee having the time to offer a full content review before 20 May. My apologies. ComplexRational (talk) 23:56, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

2021 update

Latest comment: 2 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion

I didn't use the following sources:

If a Spanish speaker (cc SandyGeorgia) is interested, Peralta Casani, Pedro (April 2021). Desastres Naturales en el Sur del Perú y Norte de Chile: Una historia de terremotos, erupciones volcánicas, inundaciones y epidemias (1582-1714) (in Spanish). Universidad Nacional de Moquegua. Fondo Editorial. ISBN 978-612-4466-09-0. might contain further information; I was a little hindered by the language barrier. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 13:28, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

Will also need to look at this Hungarian source on the effects on Croatia. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 14:47, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

File:Huaynaputina.jpg deletion request

Latest comment: 2 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

File:Huaynaputina.jpg has been nominated for deletion on Commons, see C:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Huaynaputina.jpg. 176.59.164.23 (talk) 19:38, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Huaynaputina/Archive_1&oldid=1188861574"