Talk:Ollagüe/Archive 1

Archive 1

Copyright problem removed

Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: https://web.archive.org/web/20110802145441/http://www.volcanodiscovery.com/ollague.html. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.)

For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, and, if allowed under fair use, may copy sentences and phrases, provided they are included in quotation marks and referenced properly. The material may also be rewritten, providing it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Therefore, such paraphrased portions must provide their source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 15:30, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Jo-Jo Eumerus has pointed out that there's some similarity between our page and other sources such as http://www.boliviamia.net/destino-turistico.php?attraction=Ollague%20Volcano or https://boliviatravelsite.com/tourist-attraction.php?attraction=Ollague%20Volcano. I see the similarity, but – apart from the above – I don't see any evidence of copying into our article, which appears to have evolved naturally, the early versions based on, but not copied from, the Smithsonian page, with subsequent small additions by various editors. It looks to me as if one or more of those pages may have borrowed some sentences from us. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 15:30, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Ollagüe. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140814173747/http://www.ine.gob.bo/publicaciones/visorPdf.aspx?Codigo=050902&tipo=1 to http://www.ine.gob.bo/publicaciones/visorPdf.aspx?Codigo=050902&tipo=1

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

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• 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) 05:03, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Ollagüe/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Ceranthor (talk · contribs) 15:58, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).
	2c. it contains no original research.
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
	7. Overall assessment.

I will be reviewing this later today. ceranthor 15:58, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Lead

• " Part of the Central Volcanic Zone of the Andes, its highest summit is 5,868 metres (19,252 ft) above sea level and is capped by a summit crater that opens to the south." - how can its highest summit be capped by a crater? Doesn't read right
• "that is visible over large distances." - "over large distances" may be fine, but "from afar" makes more sense to me functionally
• "It started developing over one million years ago," - more than, not over
• "A fault cut into the edifice and caused two large landslides." - kind of disjointed, could flow better
• " Later two groups of lava domes formed, the Ch'aska Urqu on the southeastern slope and the La Celosa on the northwestern. Both are formed by dacite." - these could easily be combined into one sentence
• "Debris from the collapse spread in the form of hummocks down the western slope and into the adjacent salar, splitting it in two. " - you should clarify what a salar is for the general reader
• I think the last three paragraphs of the lead should be combined into one larger paragraph.
• "While there is no clear evidence of historical eruptions at Ollagüe, the volcano is considered to be potentially active and is monitored by SERNAGEOMIN" - SERNAGEOMIN... which is...?

I think I got these. Need another look on the "fault and landslide" section, though. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:58, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Prose Throughout

• "The name is derived from Aymara ullaña to see, to look at, to watch, wi a nominalizing suffix to indicate a place, "viewpoint".[4]" - What does "wi" mean?
• "Ollagüe straddles the border between Chile and Bolivia, with most of the edifice lying on the Bolivian side of the border.[5] " - Remove "of the border" at the end
• "Towns close to Ollagüe are Amincha,[6] Buenaventura,[8] Cosca, El Chaco, Ollague[6] and Santa Rosa.[9] The main road of Ollagüe runs along the western foot of the volcano.[8]" - these can be combined into one sentence
• "On the mountain itself, which reportedly can be climbed from the eastern side,[10] lie a few mines.[9]" - any info about what the mines contain or their history?
• "The subducted slab loses water as it sinks into the mantle, and this water and other components migrate into the mantle wedge and cause the formation of melts in the wedge.[12]" - this sentence is a bit technical, and would benefit from a little more explanation of linked terms (mantle wedge, slab, mantle...)
• "At this latitude, 240–300 kilometres (150–190 mi) west of the CVZ[13]" - comma after this
• "the Nazca Plate subducts steeply beneath the South America Plate in the Peru-Chile Trench.[14]" - I'd clarify which plate was oceanic and which was continental
• "About 34 of these volcanoes are considered to be active,[16] most of the volcanoes have not received detailed scientific reconnaissance.[17]" - should be a semicolon, not a comma
• "as a consequence crustal contamination has heavily affected the magmas that formed the volcanoes." - what's crustal contamination?
• " The recent volcanic activity started during the Miocene. It includes major ignimbrite eruptions of dacitic to rhyolitic composition beginning from 23 million years ago, causing the formation of calderas like Galan." - I'd combine these sentences
• "Monogenetic centres are aligned on these faults" - definitely worth explaining what monogenetic means
• "The volcano is usually covered with snow, which together with yellow and red colours gives Ollagüe a beautiful appearance.[10] " - I'd be cautious to describe it as "beautiful" unless you use quotes
• "on the flip side, lack of erosion also means that relatively little of its internal structure is exposed.[20]" - I'd nix the semi colon before this and make it a new sentence. I also think "on the flip side" is informal.
• Worth it to link gullying to gully? It should also be explained briefly
• " about 85 cubic kilometres (20 cu mi)-[2]91 cubic kilometres (22 cu mi)" - this should be replace with a convert template that uses the |to prefix.
• "Fault scarps on the northwestern and southeastern side of the edifice also reflect faulting.[27]" - Of course, by definition they do. I'd rewrite this sentence to say that fault scarps can be seen on the NW/SE sides, or something along those lines.
• "Tectonic extension" should be linked or explained briefly
• "A 700 metres (2,300 ft) wide[31]" - Should be 700 metre... this needs to be fixed grammatically (and might occur elsewhere in the article)
• "Chalcedony, clay, kaolinite and opal are found as well.[7]" - this could be incorporated into another existing sentence I think
• "According to a report in 1894, fumes released from sulfur beds can incapacitate a man in seconds, making ascents difficult.[10]" - bit vague... at the volcano? any specific part?

Getting this done. History of the mines suffers from lack of sources that are clearly reliable, but I'll search around a little. Took a stab at explaining "slab" and "mantle wedge" and "oceanic" versus "continental", it probably needs sources for these explanations - would it make sense to use {{efn}} notes to explain them? Same question for "monogenetic", "tectonic extension" and "gullying". I've rewritten the "started in the Miocene" sentence. Added quotes around "beautiful". Not sure about how to work the citation for the volume if they are joined into a "to" statement. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 10:30, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Only got up to debris avalanche so far. I'll post some more comments asap. ceranthor 23:32, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

​ Thanks. Owing to personal time constraints, I'll have to check this tomorrow at the earliest. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 10:11, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

No problem. I'll post some more comments ASAP in the meantime. ceranthor 16:25, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

More Prose Comments (Composition and beyond)

• "Blobs of basaltic andesite are found in all rocks from the volcano;[32] " - blobs is a vague word... any chance the source describes it more explicitly than as "blobs"?
• I think the first and second paragraphs can be combined.
• "Some of the phenocrysts are surrounded by reaction rims," - you'll have to explain what this means
• "with a high content of potassium." - should be high potassium content
• "Element compositions match these of other volcanoes in the CVZ." - did you mean "those"?
• "Probably, it was in part hydrothermally altered upper crustal rock,[61] and in part Miocene age ignimbrites.[62]" - to someone unfamiliar with Geological jargon, this sentence would be incomprehensible. I think you'll have to explain some of the terminology, and potentially break it into two sentences to do so
• "Fumarolic gases are formed primarily by SO2 and H2O, with minor contents of CO2." - how can they be "formed by" gases themselves? Made up of I think makes more sense...
• "Lava flows from these stages have gray colours and rocky to plate-y appearance, with flow folds and some breccia." - what's a plate-y appearance?
• Coulee is a red link
• "thick platy flow" - before it was plate-y; which is it? Stay consistent
• "More recently, seismic swarms as well as general earthquake activity have been observed at Ollagüe,[85] which is deemed to be a fairly substantial seismic activity.[86]" - not sure what this is trying to argue.
• "This earthquake activity occurs in a diffuse pattern around the volcano.[85]" - When exactly?
• "SERNAGEOMIN publishes a volcano hazard index for Ollagüe.[6] " - how often do they publish it?
• The link to Ollague, the village, at the end of the article redirects to the volcano's page. Fix that link so it goes to the commune's article.

The source uses the exact word "blob" but it also says "inclusions"; that may be a better synonym. For "reaction rims", "coulee" and that overly technical sentence about contaminants I'll apply whichever solution is warranted for "monogenetic", "slab", "mantle wedge" as discussed before. I rewrote the earthquake sentence but it may not be clear enough still. As for "how often" it seems to be continuously published. I also need to fix some links to SERNAGEOMIN, will tackle this. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 11:24, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Sources

• Why does this source - "Pasley, Charles M. S. (1894-01-01). "Descriptive Notes on the Southern Plateau of Bolivia and the Sources of the River Pelaya". The Geographical Journal. 3 (2): 107. doi:10.2307/1774025." - not follow the same format as other journal articles?
• Same with ref 31, 59, 70, and 75
• Otherwise, sources seem reliable.
• This source - "Hastenrath, Stefan L. (1971-01-01). "On the Pleistocene Snow-Line Depression in the Arid Regions of the South American Andes". Journal of Glaciology. 10 (59): 255–267. doi:10.3198/1971JoG10-59-255-268." - has a dead link.

The citation style I use is sfn for things where I am citing for multiple pages, and list-defined citations for things where there is only one pagenumber. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 11:24, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Copyvio

• Violation seems unlikely according to Earwig's tool.

General

• No disambiguation links.

This should finish up my GA review. ceranthor 00:11, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

@Ceranthor: I think I got most things done (save for looking at mining information). Some other things may merit a double check. More generally, I wonder if technical terms are better explained in prose or by dedicated footnotes; what would you think? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 11:24, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

​ I think it's a personal preference. In the past I've tried to restrict footnotes to clarifying things that are contradicted among sources (such as elevation or other numerical values), but I've seen them used effectively to explain technical terms as well. In my experience, using a footnote can sometimes disrupt the flow of the text, but I think that's a personal feeling rather than an objective standard.

Also, let me know which you decide to go with, and then I'll read through once more just to double check that everything has been addressed. ceranthor 16:17, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Opted to go for a mixture: Rewording the "extension" part as well as the "contaminant" one but I am not certain that it works, explaining in-text the slab and mantle wedge parts (would that need additional sourcing?), some efns. I'll see if there is info on mining (and a fix for the bogus citation error). Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 17:35, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

​ Sounds good. Give me a ping when you think you've cleared everything up.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Ceranthor (talk • contribs)

OK, I got the source added for mantle wedge. Didn't find any substantive sources on mining, either reliable or not. I get the impression that a lot of this mining was informal and that sources if they exist are not easily accessible. So this is ready for another review pass. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:39, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Made a few more changes. I think this is ready, so I'll pass it. Good work. ceranthor 15:21, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).
	2c. it contains no original research.
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
	7. Overall assessment.

In case we want to cover the sulfur-industrial complex as well...

We can use [1], [2], [3], [4], [5] and [6]. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 14:35, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

And this one for mountaineering. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 19:55, 28 March 2020 (UTC)