Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/El Tatio/archive1

< Wikipedia:Featured article candidates
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 9 October 2021 [1].

El Tatio edit

Nominator(s): Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 14:39, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the highest geothermal area in the world, and the largest of the Southern Hemisphere with over 100 geothermal manifestations such as geysers. It is today mainly a tourism destination, and also a research object for scientists analyzing microbial life in extreme habitats comparable to Mars. In the past it was also prospected for geothermal power generation but a major incident in 2009, which had major implications both for regional geothermal power politics and natives-government relations, has probably terminated this prospecting. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 14:39, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Image review edit

Comments from Chidgk1 edit

  • Suggest swapping 2nd and 3rd sentences as size more important than meaning of name
    Done, seems reasonable. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:59, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The vents are sites of populations of extremophile microorganisms and have been studied as analogs for the early Earth and possible past life on Mars." implies that there were/are similar vents on Mars - if that is right could you say a bit more in the body - if wrong suggest splitting into 2 sentences to clarify
    Went with the second option as I couldn't find anything readily usable to source an expanded description of the Mars analogy. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:59, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "As of 2010, about 10.9 gigawatt geothermal energy are produced on Earth, not all of it linked to active volcanism." could be deleted unless you are comparing it with the potential of this field in which case it should be updated and might be better to be put closer to the potential for this field.
    Deleted it. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:59, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete "(130,000–540,000 hp)"
    Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:59, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally, if you found these comments useful, please add a comment or 2 hereChidgk1 (talk) 15:11, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Aye, they were useful. I'll see about that FAC. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:59, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator note edit

While this has passed the important image review the nomination has been open for over three weeks and is showing little sign of gaining a consensus to support. Unless there is a significant change in this over the next two or three days, I am afraid that it is liable to be archived. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:28, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Put some notices on the FAC talk page and my own, as well as on the two wikiprojects. I am wondering if Wikipedia:WikiProject Energy may also be interested. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:27, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Gog the Mild: The internet for my PC has been out for two days and I was busy prior to that so I haven't been able to take a good look at this article. I will try to review it in a bit. Volcanoguy 15:25, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Jo-Jo Eumerus, this is liable to be archived very soon. Perhaps you could contact some of the editors you have recently done source reviews for with a neutrally phrased request for a review here? Gog the Mild (talk) 15:11, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I'll see, pinging @ZKang123, Wtfiv, Serendipodous, Kusma, Ippantekina, Mr rnddude, Lee Vilenski, and Ceoil: to see if they want to review this. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 19:13, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Will review. No knowledge of geology, I'll probably ask some naive questions for clarification. —Kusma (talk) 14:01, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I just got back to a stable place where I can usefully help out. Like Kusma, I'm not sure how much I can contribute in terms of the topic. But I'll certainly try and review to the best of my abilities in the next couple of days. Wtfiv (talk) 07:16, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Volcanoguy edit

Geomorphology and geography

  • "The field is located 89 kilometres (55 mi)-80 kilometres (50 mi) north". Should probably use 80–89 kilometres (50–55 mi).
    Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:19, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "From north to south the andesitic stratovolcanoes include the 5,651-metre 18,540 ft)[20][7][21] or 5,696 metres (18,688 ft) high". 5,696 metres should be 5,696-metre. Also citation error.
    I think I got it, but I don't see a citation error? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:19, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and the 5,314-metre (17,434 ft) high Volcan Tatio, and they collectively form the El Tatio volcanic group.[20][7][21][b]" should be "and the 5,314-metre (17,434 ft) high Volcan Tatio, which collectively form the El Tatio volcanic group." Also citation error.
    Done, but I don't see the citation error? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:19, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Geothermal field

  • "and is the largest geyser field in the southern hemisphere". Shouldn't southern hemisphere be capitalized?
    Yes; done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:19, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the highest geyser field in the world.[45][13]" Citation error.
  • "and their geysers are taller than these at El Tatio". Replace these with those.
    Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:19, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and is characterized by fumaroles, hot springs, steam vents known as soffioni and steaming soil" would read better as "and is characterized by fumaroles, hot springs, steam vents and steaming soil" with "steam vents" piped to the soffioni article.
    Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:19, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Stronger geothermal activity is located within three discrete areas covering a total of 10 square kilometres (3.9 sq mi) surface, and includes boiling water fountains, hot springs, geysers, mudpots, mud volcanoes and sinter terraces;[47][13]" Citation error.
  • "Many vents are linked to fractures that run northwest-southeast or southwest-northeast across the field." En dashes.
    Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:19, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Small scale features include cones, crusts, mollusc-shaped formations, waterfall-like surfaces and very small terraces." Small-scale.
    Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:19, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Geysers and also water fountains discharge from up to 3-metre (9.8 ft) high cones[70][66]" Citation error.
  • "The activity of geysers is not stable over time, changes in water supply or in the properties of the conduit that supplies them can cause changes in their eruptive activity." A semicolon would probably be better than a comma.
    Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:19, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Geology

  • "The region was dominated by andesitic volcanism producing lava flows until the late Miocene, then large scale ignimbrite activity took place between 10 and 1 million years ago." Large-scale.
  • "The APVC is underpinned by a large magma chamber with the shape of a sill, the Altiplano-Puna Magma Body; a number of volcanoes and geothermal system including El Tatio are geographically associated with the Altiplano-Puna Magma Body." Geothermal systems.
  • "The terrain at El Tatio is formed by Jurassic–Cretaceous sediments of marine and volcanic origin, Tertiary–Holocene volcanic formations that were emplaced in various episodes, and recent sediments formed by glaciers, alluvium, colluvium and material formed by the geothermal field, such as sinter.[78][21]" Citation error.
  • "Hydrothermal alteration of country rock has occurred at El Tatio, it has yielded large deposits of alteration minerals such as illite, nobleite, smectite, teruggite and ulexite." would probably read better as "Hydrothermal alteration of country rock at El Tatio has yielded large deposits of alteration minerals such as illite, nobleite, smectite, teruggite and ulexite."
    Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:19, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The summit parts of several volcanoes of the El Tatio volcanic group have been bleached and discoloured by hydrothermal activity." I would reword this to "The summits of several volcanoes comprising the El Tatio volcanic group have been bleached and discoloured by hydrothermal activity."
    Hmm, I think that that reads a little odd - a summit is an one-dimensional point not a three-dimensional structure. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:19, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    What do you mean by "summit parts"? I understood that as parts of a summit. Volcanoguy 05:20, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, exactly that. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:55, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hydrology

  • "The source of heat of the whole complex appears to be the Laguna Colorada caldera,[84][21][85] the El Tatio volcanic group,[41][47] the Cerro Guacha and Pastos Grandes calderas[86][15] or the Altiplano-Puna Magma Body.[87]" Citation errors.
  • "The water travels through a number of aquifers that correspond to permeable rock formations, such as the Salado and Puripicar ignimbrites,[92][90] as well as through faults and fractures in the rock." Citation error.
  • "Arsenic concentrations in waters at El Tatio can reach 40 milligrams per litre (2.3×10−5 oz/cu in)[99]-50 milligrams per litre (2.9×10−5 oz/cu in)". I would use 40–50 milligrams per litre (2.3×10−5–2.9×10−5 oz/cu in).
    Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:19, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Fumaroles

  • "Carbon dioxide is the most important fumarole gas, followed by hydrogen sulfide.[107][85][53]" Citation errors.

Composition of spring deposits

  • "Volcanic rock fragments such as plagioclase and quartz are found within cavities of the sinter." Plagioclase and quartz are minerals, not rock fragments.
    Corrected. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:19, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Microorganisms

  • "Biofilms and microbial mats are omnipresent at El Tatio,[133] including Calothrix,[70][65] Leptolyngbya,[134] Lyngbya and Phormidium[e] cyanobacteria, which form mats within the hot springs covering the solid surfaces, including oncoids and the sinter.[70][65]" Citation errors.

Geological history

  • "The intersection between northwest-southeast trending and northnorthwest-southsoutheast-trending lineaments at El Tatio has been correlated with the occurrence of geothermal activity." Northwest–southwest trending, north-northwest–south-southeast trending.
    Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:19, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The first was the 10.5–9.3 million years old[f] Rio Salado ignimbrite". Grammar.
  • "It was followed by the 8.3 million years old voluminous Sifon ignimbrite". Grammar.
    I think I got both? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:19, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "This strong ignimbrite volcanism is associated with activity of the Altiplano–Puna volcanic complex, which has produced dacite dominated large volume ignimbrites and sizable calderas, starting from the middle Miocene." I would reword this to "This strong ignimbrite volcanism is associated with activity of the Altiplano–Puna volcanic complex, which has produced large volume dacite ignimbrites and sizable calderas, starting from the middle Miocene."
    Yeah, that's better; it's in. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:19, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Petrological data suggest that over time the erupted lavas of the El Tatio volcanic group have become more mafic, with older products being andesitic and later ones basaltic-andesitic." Is this implying the later lavas are both basaltic and andesitic or is it referring to basaltic andesite?
    Both basaltic and andesitic, not basaltic andesite. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:19, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "There is no recorded historical volcanism in the El Tatio area[47] and volcanism has not directly affected it since about 27,000 years." I'm thinking "for about 27,000 years" might be better wording.
    Yes, that's in. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:19, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Research published in 2020 suggests that the geothermal activity commenced in the southern part of the field about 27,000 - 20,000 years ago and spread northwards, reaching the western part of the field last less than 4,900 years ago." Is "last" an extra word? Seems out of place.
    It wasn't an extra word, but it doesn't add anything so it's gone. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:19, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Human exploitation

  • "Feasibility studies in northern Chile identified El Tatio as a potential site for geothermal power generation, with large scale prospecting taking place in the 1960s and 1970s." Large-scale.
    Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:19, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In 1973 and 1974, wells were drilled and it was estimated that if the geothermal resources were fully exploited, about 100–400 megawatts electric power could be produced." 100–400 megawatts of electric power.
    Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:19, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Controversy

  • "the incident triggered a major controversy about geothermal power, with ramifications beyond Chile." I would replace "about" with "over".
    Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:19, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

All this from my first pass. Volcanoguy 00:52, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Volcanoguy:Done so far but I don't see what the "citation error"s are about? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:19, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I always thought citations had to be in order. Volcanoguy 16:18, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Volcanoguy:Hmm, yeah. I think I got them. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:14, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This article has my support. Volcanoguy 16:15, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Source review edit

Spotchecks not done. Version reviewed

  • FN20: why no retrieval date?
    I just forgot it; now it's in. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 18:44, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • FN50: page formatting. Ditto FN119, check for others
    I think I got them. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 18:44, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Still issues here, eg 151. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:07, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Aye, I missed some of them. Now they should be. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:07, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why do some journals include ISSN and others not?
    I don't think that the tools always include ISSN. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 18:44, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Not sure what you mean by that - are you suggesting the works without it don't have one? Nikkimaria (talk) 21:07, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes. I've been checking some and I can't find the ISSN. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:07, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • FN178 is missing italics on work title. Ditto 184, check for others
    Remind me, "work" here is the title of the article, or of the newspaper? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 18:44, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Newspaper. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:07, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I think I got these. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:07, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • FN179 is missing language
    Added. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 18:44, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • FN185 is a broken link - what kind of source is this?. Ditto 186, 187
    It's a newspaper which I guess decided to go for paywalls. Added archives. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 18:44, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Be consistent in when location is included
    Standardized. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 18:44, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • How are you ordering multiples Sources entries with the same first author?
    Went for "last names, then year". Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 18:44, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nikkimaria (talk) 12:15, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Hi Nikkimaria, is this up to scratch now? Gog the Mild (talk) 12:25, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Looks like there have been substantial formatting changes since my review... would be good to have the new short footnotes be spaced normally, as the existing ones were. Alphabetization of Sources is off now as well. Some of the works missing ISSNs definitely have them, eg Geochemical Journal. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:19, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Nikkimaria:I admit I am not sure what "spaced normally" means. I've handled the alphabetization with a first author>work/title>year priority rule. Got all the ISSNs I think. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:14, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    If you look at the previous set of short cites, they all have spaces between authors and dates (and so are easier to scan), whereas the newer set have no spaces. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:36, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Nikkimaria:Ah, these ones. I got them. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:40, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Kusma edit

  • Lead: three short paragraphs all starting with "El Tatio", looks a bit odd.
    Changed the first word, but I am not sure that they should be made longer. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:53, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I was more wondering whether they could be combined.
    I'd think that having one big block is a little less readable. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:24, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Merging the first two paragraphs wouldn't lead to one big block yet.
    OK, tried something. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:23, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is El Tatio a "geyser field" or a "geothermal field with many geysers"? This way of presenting it would be ok if a "geothermal field" is a special case of a "geyser field", not so much the other way around.
    Second; changed the first mention but I am not sure that the second mention can be changed without a rewrite. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:53, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • El Tatio lies at the western foot of a series of stratovolcanoes, which run along the border between Chile and Bolivia. This series of volcanoes is I don't quite know what the "western foot" is. Also, shouldn't it be "the series runs"?
    "Western foot" means that the field lies at the western base of the mountains. I am concerned that "the series" might sound like TV series or something. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:53, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, I was unclear in what I meant. I would prefer "series of stratovolcanoes, which runs" to "which run".
    Ah, that's in. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:24, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • supereruptions: when?
    Added. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:53, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Name: The term "tatio" is Kunza maybe explain that "Kunza" is a language, and who speaks it? Does "Copacoya" mean anything?
    Rewritten. I don't think there are any speakers left and I couldn't find any etymology for Copacoya. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:53, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    You could mention the mountain (you talk about it later). eswiki has "the grandfather who cries" as translation of "el tatio", but I can't comment on the reliability of their sources. —Kusma (talk) 21:05, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Done. I am unsure on whether these sources are good for a toponym etymology. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:24, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Geomorphology and geography: You start with geography?
    Swapped terms around. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:53, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The worker's camp is not a town. Better to split it into its own sentence.
    Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:53, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • all parts of the field are easily accessible walking? by road? with a wheelchair?
    Good question. I did look for an official website or something and all I got was a rock. The Rough Guide and Lonely Planet could be used but I am not sure that they would qualify as "high-quality reliable sources". Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:53, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    "easily accessible" still doesn't work without context. While we're at this point, is Siloli the same as Silala River? (es:Silala makes me think so).
    From the source it seems like "on foot" is correct so that's in. Regarding Siloli, the source isn't clear if it's meant to be the river or a town of the same name, but the maps indicate that the places coincide, so that's in as well. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:24, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Inka sanctuary: any information when that was?
    Only that it exists and (presumably) that it was operated during the Inka time, i.e 12-14th century. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:53, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • who and how far away is "Lascar"? (Apparently a volcano, but a gloss would help). Why is this relevant here?
    Glossed; it's the most active volcano in the region and 1993 its largest eruption during the past 20,000+ years. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:53, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • East of the field andesitic stratovolcanoes reach A comma would help to explain whether this is "east of the field andesitic, stratovolcanoes ..." or "east of the field, andesitic stratovolcanoes..." This is probably easier for those who know what "andesitic" means without clicking the link. Next sentence would also be easier to parse with a comma after "south".
    Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:53, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • the 4,570–4,690-metre Alto Ojo del Cablor: what do these numbers mean? Is the height variable or unknown? As we don't have a link for the mountain, maybe footnote?
    Elevation, it's a mountain range. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:53, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Perhaps gloss it "Alto Ojo del Cablor range"? Also, some of this description would be much aided by a map. The one at es:El Tatio isn't great, but helps me understand this better (and has the Copacoya). (BTW the only entries on a Wikipedia about many of these mountains seems to be the Lsjbot articles, compare ceb:Cerro Copacoya and ceb:Alto Ojo de Cáblor. Not sure they are worth an {{ill}}).
    Glossed, and made a crop at File:03-tocopilla-calama (El Tatio).jpg; how does it look? I don't see any ILLs, though. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:24, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I think including the map could be helpful. ILL: I meant that I'm not sure whether adding {{ill}}'s to the Cebuano bot articles is worth doing, but that's probably my anti-robot prejudice speaking. —Kusma (talk) 22:14, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Checking Nikkimaria whether File:03-tocopilla-calama (El Tatio).jpg is fine for inclusion. I wouldn't bother adding the ill's in this case for the same reasons as you. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:56, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    What's the author's date of death? Nikkimaria (talk) 23:27, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Risopatrón died in 1930, I can't find the dates for the other two mapmakers involved. Either way in the US they are public domain as the 1910 publication, corrected in 1913, is no longer copyrighted. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:23, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    US status is fine, but the image also has a life+70 tag - if we can't confirm that to be the case, we can't use that tag. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:05, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Hmm, yeah, and upon checking this would create problems for Commons. I've nominated the maps for deletion here but since we only care about US copyrights on enwiki I think we could upload local copies and add them to the wiki here. What say you, Nikkimaria? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:01, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    That seems reasonable. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:51, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    This is done. I am wondering if there is a way to mass-transfer Commons images to enwiki in cases such as these. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 14:15, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dacitic volcanism: is this volcanism from the Dacitic Age, or volcanism producing dacite stones?
    Specified. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:53, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • this volcanism was known as the "liparitic formation" and it covers large areas in the region I have difficulties parsing this sentence.
    I see but I am not sure how to reword it. It means that there are volcanic rocks which form a group called the "liparitic formation". Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:53, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Will continue later. Interesting article, but not so easy to read. —Kusma (talk) 14:27, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Geothermal field: About 110 documented geothermal manifestations occur at El Tatio, and a total number of 400 has been estimated. This sentence seems a bit out of place here; doesn't this work much better together with the 67 geysers and 300 hot springs and their names? (Or am I misunderstanding something here?) It is odd that some of the names are in English.
    Hmm, yeah. Moved it down. I think the English names are informal terms used by researchers, English being the most common language in science. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:24, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    It is unclear here whether these are the local names used by tourists, scientists' nicknames, or a mixture of both.
    Probably mostly scientists' nicknames but the problem is that in the absence of a dedicated discussion we only have probablyies. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:56, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some geyser fountains reached heights greater than 10 metres tense? Do you mean "have occasionally reached" or "have in the past reached"?
    The latter; rewritten. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:56, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't like the bulleted list of features much. The subsection "Geothermal field" is very long compared to others; any chance of splitting it?
    I am kind of uneasy with the list too but I don't think that leaving them as paragraphs would be better; we are discussing them in list style after all. I don't think the section is too much longer nor that it could easily be split. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:56, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do we need three examples of "geyser cone" with identical caption?
    I think that, since we don't have many reliable sources that discuss the tourism aspects of what is after all a major tourist attraction, the images fill in some of that information. So I am tempted to say yes. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:56, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Geology section: first sentence kind of explains why this was called "central volcanic zone" a few sections up?
    If you are asking why we need to discuss it twice, it's because here it's only as geological background while the details are discussed in the section before. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:56, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hydrology: The water is precipitation originally, but no water from precipitation is mixed into it? This is confusing.
    Specified that it's local precipitation that doesn't matter. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:56, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Three separate geothermal reservoirs sentence is a bit long and may suffer from a stray comma at the end. The names "A", "B", "C" do not seem to add much.
    Rewrote this. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:56, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fumaroles: don't use "particularly" twice in one sentence. Split the final sentence?
    Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:56, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Climate and biology: has led to scientists treat El Tatio as "has led scientists to treat" or "has led to scientists treating".
    Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:23, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • You could generally consider illustrating the part of the article between "Geology" and "Human exploitation" more. eswiki has a few plants and animals that could be in the Biology section, for example.
    I'll add File:Vicuñas near el Tatio geysers - panoramio.jpg and File:Yareta near el Tatio geysers - panoramio.jpg, I think. Nikkimaria for the customary check. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:23, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd be happy with those. —Kusma (talk) 16:43, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Those are both appropriately licensed. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:06, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    And they are added, in gallery form. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:01, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • biogenix typo
    Corrected. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:23, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • eswiki has quite a few birds living in the area.
    It does not have sources, however, and from searching I don't find any discussion on birds at El Tatio even though discussions of other waterbodies in the region (e.g Laguna Miscanti) mention plenty of them. So I am not sure how much of this is applicable to El Tatio. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:23, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • You could mention which of the microorganisms are considered to be the extremophiles mentioned in the lead.
    In the lead itself or in the body? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:23, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The issue is that the lead promises extremophiles, and then ctrl-f extremo doesn't find them in the body if you are too lazy to actually read. —Kusma (talk) 15:23, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:44, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Geological history: later this volcano was reinterpreted to be of Pleistocene age I'm a bit confused here. What was it previously interpreted at, who did the reinterpretation and why do you mention that it was reinterpreted?
    The source does not go in much detail, but I know that many "Holocene" volcanoes in the central Andes were later reinterpreted as actually being of Pleistocene age. And even more recently of the opposite such as Purupuruni and Taapaca. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:23, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    So, previous scholarly consensus was Holocene, now it is Pleistocene? Or do some scholars (who?) say the one thing, some the other? Or is the consensus Holocene, but some people now think it is Pleistocene? —Kusma (talk) 15:57, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't know if I would call this a "consensus" as there is very little research done on these volcanoes but I think the first is the most appropriate interpretation. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:40, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Human exploitation: do we really need all the possible reported yields? It is curious that source 179 has two very different numbers.
    No, I've cut some. 179 is collating other people's research, which has come to differential conclusions. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:23, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • 100 UTM: would prefer use of {{ill}} to a direct eswiki link and/or an explanation what the acronym means without having to read Spanish.
    Ill cannot handle plurals as far as I can see. Added a parenthetical
    UTM [es] ?
    That seems to work; it's in. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:40, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tourism: It seems likely that there is information from pre-2009 (what's the history of tourism in this area?) and from post-2010. eswiki has some discussion of security measures and accidents. There also has apparently been some back and forth in declaring it a zona de interés turístico nacional.
    I couldn't find any good source on the tourism history, sorry. I'll see about whether this has more information on tourism but I am kind of dubious about whether most of the eswiki article sources meet the "high-quality reliable source" criteria. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:23, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Am I correct to assume that most tourists stay in San Pedro de Atacama and take day trips to El Tatio?
    Probably yes. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:23, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Looks like it from Lonely Planet. [2]
  • Sources: It is not obvious which sources use {{sfn}} and which sources use references directly, and it looks messy. For some citations, like the frog reference 149, a page number would be nice, and moving it ti {{sfn}} would make that easier.
    The rule is that sfn is for sources where I use more than one page, and direct when only one page. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:23, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Overall, the article is thoroughly researched, especially the science parts, which are great if a bit technical. I think the tourism/administration/protection part looks short compared to the rest of the article, given that it seems to be a major tourist attraction. I'd love to have some more maps/schematics/illustrations to aid my understanding. If Zeil 1959 is really CC-BY as claimed, it might be possible to use/adapt the maps? (At least mention that there are useful maps in that reference?) I'd probably use more commas and/or try to use shorter sentences overall, but I'll leave discussing that to the native speakers. —Kusma (talk) 22:02, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'll see to get some images from the Zeil source. I'll check about expanding the non-technical aspects but I don't promise anything - it seems like much of the tourism information is on private websites and such and thus doesn't meet the "high-quality reliable source" criteria. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:23, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Did a mini expansion and I've listed and annotated some additional sources here. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:55, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    And here's a map. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:07, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I think that map would be very helpful. For the tourism information, I don't think we need the same level of scholarly sources as for the other information. I tried to look for sources by G-searching site:gob.cl for "El Tatio", which gives some candidates, but then remembered that I don't actually know enough Spanish. (The Yellowstone FA does cite US government pages extensively). —Kusma (talk) 15:48, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    That's where I looked as well but it's pretty sparse overall. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:40, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm fairly close to supporting now (especially if the Zeil map drawing goes in that is more clear about where the geysers are than the larger map), there's just a few layout/style issues: the bulleted list really doesn't fit in well with the rest, the images could be more evenly distributed in the article (and the two galleries behave differently on resizing, especially noticeable on wide screens). I'd prefer the APVC abbreviation to be introduced in the body instead of the lead, but that's minor and I won't insist on that. I'd still like more about tourism but I see your point about high quality sources. Thank you for switching to uniform {{sfn}}: it looks much cleaner now. —Kusma (talk) 16:37, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Another choice for the maps would be to export a piece of the OpenStreetMap display. I didn't manage to get <mapframe> to produce a similarly nice interactive map (test at my sandbox has only roads and rivers), but perhaps there are some experts for Wikipedia:Maplink who know what to do. —Kusma (talk) 16:47, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It's just my opinion, but that OSM map is a little too bare bones for my liking. As I've noted below regarding Doctor Who, I think the bulleted list is better than some other presentations that could be done. I've tried something about the galleries, I think that moving the images around may even their distribution but would reduce their pertinence to the sections. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 18:31, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
OpenStreetMap seems much better for human geography questions than for physical geography, I agree (and you already have the mapframe map at a different zoom level). The Zeil map doesn't look nearly as empty as the OSM one (mostly thanks to the contour lines). Either would be very useful in addition to the 1910 topographical map because they show the location and extent of the geyser field.
The bulleted list is kind of lacking a title telling us what is being listed, or an intro sentence ending in a colon. Without those, it just looks like you're suddenly changing from unbulleted paragraphs to bulleted paragraphs. (Compare examples at MOS:LIST).
The larger images look much better for the second gallery, thanks. I think we disagree on our image placement preferences, but that's fine. You could consider linking vicuña and yareta in the captions. —Kusma (talk) 20:07, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Added the Zeil map. Added an intro for the list. Also linked the terms. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:23, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Brill. Supporting. —Kusma (talk) 08:32, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support from wtfiv edit

Knowing next to nothing about the topic, I found this article to be well-written with the links quite informative in explaining the geology. Most of my comments are minor.

Also, I'd like to note that I very much appreciate that there appeared to be an effort in this article to use a good number of accessible articles that didn't require a paywall to verify. (Though I didn't spot-check references, I clicked to a number to get more information about a point.)

  • Moraine needs a link.
    I see that the first mention is linked? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 19:10, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes...missed this one too. Started heading into the weeds of the article at that point.
  • Sheetflow is red linked, but take a look at sheet erosion and see if that can be meaningfully linked (reducing one red link).
    Checked it, but I don't think it would work - that article only discusses the consequences of sheet flow. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 19:10, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • It then leaves the article with a dangling, undefined term. Anything to help a less technical reader would be good.
  • Would "sheet-like flow" be clearer? I think people know what "sheet" is. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:23, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Text around FN38 mentions Western Cordilla. This confused me, as Wikipedia articles point toward the North American Western Cordilla. Citation at FN38 mentions Eastern Cordilla drainage, but not Western.
    I think a better term would be Cordillera Occidental but would that be less clear? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 19:10, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Western Cordilla is unclear, so anything to disambiguate the term would be useful. At least the use of Spanish differentiates it from Western Cordilla in North America. And again, the reference mentions the Eastern drainage. Can these elements be brought into line?
  • Well, the source is just wrong if it mentions the Eastern Cordillera - that one's hundred of kilometres east of El Tatio. I've rewritten this a bit. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:23, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Does sinster terrace need to be redlinked? Sinster is defined via a link, and a reader who looks up sinster the first time should be able to understand that a terrace is a terrace of sinster. If there are interesting and unusual aspects to sinster terraces that are notable and need to be explored, then maybe an article is needed?
    I think one could write an interesting topic about sinter terraces, so yes. But I don't think I have the stamina to do so at the moment. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 19:10, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I think it is an unnecessary redlink. My own feeling is that featured articles minimize redlinks to a handful of necessary terms , and when a term is missing defines it in context. (Seeing a highway redlinked was also odd, but maybe its worthy of a historical review?) but I'm just trying help out here and I can see there is already a lot work in the article.
    I don't think we treat redlinks differently in FAs than in regular articles? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:23, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    No need to change anything with these. I just think too many redlinks just don't look good and leave the article with undefined terms. But it is clearly a matter of preference, so this is set.
  • First two sentences beginning Geothermal field are a bit odd. Would it help to break sentences thematically? Sentence 1) Well known thermal field? 2) Largest and highest (mention in altitude). The comparison with Yellowstone and Dolina Geizerov might be stronger reworded. "taller" initially seems synonymous with the previous sentences "higher", but higher is altitude, and "taller" could be incorporated into a dependent clause, as the "height" of geysers was not a topic in the previous two sentences. It's just a bit of additional information on Yellowstone and Dolina Geizerov.
    I've done a rewrite but I'm afraid that I am not sure how to rewrite it further. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 19:10, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Edited the section and then reverted. Take a look, to see what I'm saying. The comparison of size betwee El Tatio, Yellostone and Dolina Geizerov, should adjacent. Height of geyser is not a directly relevant comparison, so subordinated, the world "altitude" added to remove confusion of high and tall. No need to keep edits, just illustrating the point and hopefully making clear the issue. Wtfiv (talk) 23:59, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, your rewrite is better than the current. I've put it in. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:23, 29 September 2021 (UTC)"[reply]
    Great! My main point for adding it was just to illustrate the issue I saw (very minor.) It's nice the edit will work.
  • There's a great many duplicate links that could be reduced: (e.g., fumoroles, glaciers, Lake Tauca, Altiplano-Puna Magma body, to just name a few.) (In pruning my own, I found this script you may want to consider using, which helps immensely: User:Evad37/duplinks-alt)
    I'll take them. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 19:10, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

*::Does that mean that they're not going to be addressed or they will be addressed? My thought is that they should be cleaned up, as that's part of the featured article process. Looks like they are addressed.

  • In Geology: "recent" is linked to Holocene. Is there a non-awkward way to say "during the Holocene" rather than linking Holocene to recent? Again, I'll go either way, as I'm trying to just help shepherd the article to closure.
    Tried something. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 19:10, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks. I think the attempt to more precisely define what was intended by "recent" without relying on the link to do the work is helpful to the casual reader.
    "Recent" here is "last 11,700 years", would that need a source if we stated it in text? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:23, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • In Geology, the abbreviation APVC occurs without warning or definition. I saw in FN74 that it most likely stands for Altiplano-Puna Volcanic Complex, but this is not defined and the abbreviation is not forwarned (e.g., following full-name with abbreviation in parenthesis.) And Altiplano-Puna Volcanic Complex can be linked as well.
    Er, it is defined in the lead. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 19:10, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Now I see it. That's what I get for reading the article without the lead. Easy to miss as it pops up much later in the article, but it was defined early.
  • In human exploitation, would it be worthwhile to slightly expand on the incident that caused the geothermic project to stall (i.e., uncontrolled well discharge)? (Following up, I think this does need to be mentioned in more detail in the article- maybe just a sentence or an expansion with a dependent clause- as you mention it in the introduction of the Featured Article Review as part of the article's notability.)
    See, my thinking is that currently it is adequately covered in the article. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 19:10, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, I see it. Following in the next section. The section break conceptually separated them for me, a more casual reader. So I didn't connect the "incident" with the following description of the other incident I'm sure a more technical reader wouldn't make that error, and reference to 2009 links them too, though it could still be mistaken for two different incidents.
    Thinking about this further, I think this would be just a bit clearer if the sentence It progressed until 2009, when an incident at the site along with environmental issues caused it to stall again. was slightly rewritten and integrated as the first sentence of the next subheading. The incident and its effect is, after all, the topic for this section. It's minor, but I think, helpful to the casual reader. Wtfiv (talk) 00:42, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I've been wondering about the structure here myself. The sequence is first research->trial drillings->2009 accident->resulting controversy. The sentence you quote was meant to be a lead-over to the focus change. Perhaps cutting that sentence would be better? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:23, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I think cutting it may work, as the subheading functions as its own lead over. Again, its very minor, but if it snagged me, I'm sure a handful of others would be snagged for it. But if the subheading jumps right into the incident and its subsequent stalling of the geothermal incident, that strikes me as a bit cleaner.
    I've cut it. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:41, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The biggest issue I see is the citations. The article remains a hybrid of ⟨ref⟩ and sfn. I wouldn't make support for this article conditional on this consistency, as it is a lot of work to fix. But isn't such consistency in citation style on of the hallmarks of a featured article? Does it seem like an issue from your perspective? Wtfiv (talk) 17:18, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I perhaps started off from a wrong premise, but back in the day I thought that this combination of sfn+ref was acceptable. Some of my more recent ones such as Lake Estancia are now standardized on only one, however. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 19:10, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    With respect to citation formatting, as I was under a different impression. During the citation spot check and image check, it seemed the FAR regulars did not address this issue, so it most likely it doesn't matter. But if we could, I'd like to get perhaps a word from one of people who monitor the FAR. Again, it's not something that stands or falls for me- I'm just trying to help out and beyond eventually give this article some support, as the responses make clear, there is really little of use I've had to offer except in terms of the misunderstandings a more casual reader may make. But perhaps this review can be useful for personal clarification: I thought a consistent citation style property of featured articles I thought was important- and one of the distinguishing characteristics of a GA from an FA. If not, that's good information to know. @Gog the Mild:, I know you've been helping the articles here move forward toward successfully completing the FAR process, are there any trends or guidelines one way or the other on this? (As mentioned, I'm not going to lay any support conditions on this article based on your- or any FA regulars- input, I just want to know the general guidelines.) Wtfiv (talk) 19:50, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I've been thinking further on this. I think WP:CITE and WP:CITEVAR are clear that a consistent reference system should be in an article. Definitely, this is not as enforced in GAs (thank goodness), but I think FAs should aim reflect these values. My purpose for jumping into this particular review was mainly to answer the call for reviewers to support the hard work done on this article and help it get to FA, but I think this consistency is an important aspect of an FA article. For me to effectively support the it and to help the article with a bit more FA polish, it needs the consistency. Since my original goal was to help, I can offer this: If it does not disrupt the committed editors to the article, I'll gladly collaborate with others with the editing required out getting the remaining ref items in this article into sfn format. If you rather leave the article as is, I more than understand. It's a lot of work. Wtfiv (talk) 08:18, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, the main problem I see with changing the citation format from ref to sfn is that it'd be a lot of work. If someone wants to do it anyway, they can I think. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:44, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Wtfiv and Jo-Jo Eumerus:, FAC criteria 2c requires "consistent citations: where required by criterion 1c, consistently formatted inline citations using footnotes". Gog the Mild (talk) 11:04, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Gog the Mild: Thank you for replying. Last thing I want to do is hold up an article due to a personal preference, but I do want to help it meet FA criteria. @Jo-Jo Eumerus: Where are you with the citations? Do you want some help making them consistent, or do you think you'll be able to get them done on your own? Wtfiv (talk) 15:55, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Honestly, I was planning to pen up Salar Ignorado today and tomorrow, but I'll try. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:40, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Wtfiv: I've begun the transformation of ref to sfn, but feel free to add some help. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:02, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Nevermind, did this myself. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 19:16, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Jo-Jo Eumerus: Just checked in to see if I need to help, but its done and it looks great! Just the consistent formatting gives it that FA aura! I put "support" up in the header of this section.
Incidentally, not really important but I didn't make any effort at avoiding paywalls. It must have arisen by chance. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 19:10, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's a good serendipity, as it allows the casual reader some opportunity to not take all the citations on faith alone. I certainly appreciated it when I could actually look at the citations to verify and understand.

Support from Femke edit

I'm leaning support, a few comments. Happy to see only few midsentence cites, and illustrations are beautiful. I'm editing from phone, so made prose suggestions directly. More to come. FemkeMilene (talk) 11:19, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • I've condensed some sentences for ease. Keep an eye out for more sentences that can be simplified.
  • Per MOS:CONVERSIONS, it is not necessary to convert standard units to US units in purely scientific context. It clutters up the prose. As far as I'm aware, power production is never given in horsepower and irradiation never per square feet.
    I think I got these, are there any other units that need changing? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 14:51, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    River discharge and (arsenic) concentrations are also (almost) entirely reported in metric. FemkeMilene (talk) 15:09, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    That's metricized now. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:44, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article is full of Spanish words. If their pronunciations in English is meant to follow Spanish, use the lang template to help screen readers. FemkeMilene (talk) 11:28, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I have to confess that I don't know about which pronunciation would be correct for any of them. Does it make a difference for the lang template? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 14:51, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Currently, everything is pronounced in English, so Taytio. I'm would guess the a in Tatio should rather be pronounced as the a in Chicago, not as in the a of the alphabet. If you wrap it in the lang template, the pronunciation would be Spanish. I do always underestimate how much English native speakers anglify pronunciation. Maybe a native speaker can enlighten us. FemkeMilene (talk) 15:09, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Pinging @Heartfox:, who seems to have a lot of experience in accessibility reviewing. FemkeMilene (talk) 10:38, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The presence of microorganisms in sinter has been implicated in their tolerance to UV radiation, as sinter absorbs much of this incoming harmful radiation I don't understand this sentence. FemkeMilene (talk) 11:41, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Reworded that completely. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 14:51, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Doesn't quite make sense to me; the microorganism are protected against UV by sinter, but have nonetheless built up their own tolerance against it? FemkeMilene (talk) 16:46, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think such traits are ever mutually exclusive. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 19:16, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    My understanding of the source (only read page 26), is that it's only about physical protection from sinter, not about tolerance from the microorganisms. I've reworded, do you agree? FemkeMilene (talk) 08:16, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    OK. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:01, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The first two elements of see also are names that may be unfamiliar: could you put a short description after them per MOS:ALSO FemkeMilene (talk) 14:40, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 14:51, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The section Human exploitation is only about geothermal. Arguably, tourism is also exploitation. You could rename to Geothermal potential, or geothermal energy potential.
    Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 19:16, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Only the fields at Yellowstone in the United States and Dolina Geizerov, which also have taller geysers than at El Tatio,[43] where geyser fountains are on average only 75 centimetres (30 in) high,[44] are larger.[45] -> sentence needs to be split in two. Not quite clear that 75 cm refers to El Tatio, and the words "are larger" are too far away from the word "Geizerov".
    Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 19:16, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • About 110 documented geothermal manifestations occur at El Tatio, and a total number of 400 has been estimated. -> About 110 geothermal manifestations have been documented at El Tatio, but the total has been estimated at 400, seems to flow better.
    I've put that in. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 19:16, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • to be preconditioned by smaller ones -> bit vague. occur more often after small ones? occur only after small ones?
    Attempted a rewrite. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 19:16, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sinter is mentioned quite often. Per WP:EXPLAINLEAD, could you add something like (mineral deposit with small cavities) after the first mention. Or something more accurate. I also do not know the word ignimbrite, but it seems less important. Maybe omit in the lede?
    Added a footnote, if ignimbrite is less important a link would suffice. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:09, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    For me, the porousness was vital in understanding the sentences about microorganisms. FemkeMilene (talk) 09:34, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Added a bit. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:22, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also in 1974 a desalination facility was built at El Tatio and can still be seen there today -> rm "and can still be seen there today" or find a newer source. A lot can happen in 18 years.
    Rewritten. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:09, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • during the Tatio controversy power generation[192] and relations between the Chilean government and native communities also gained prominence among the disputed issues -> I believe the and after 192 should be removed. the word also also not necessary.
    I think that would be quite misleading, "power generation relations" are not the issue. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:09, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I understand the sentence now. Added a comma instead. FemkeMilene (talk) 09:34, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • and the tourism industry of the region had been opposed to the project for a while -> Not quite clear if this is El Tatio's tourism industry of NZ/US. If the former, the phrase can be omitted, because it's already stated differently before. In the later cases, clarify. FemkeMilene (talk) 08:55, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Specified. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:09, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi Femkemilene, I was wondering if you felt in a position to either support or oppose this nomination? Obviously, neither is obligatory. Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:26, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I'll support. I think the remaining open comment should be dealt with more generally, and it would be unfair to withhold a support for this we'll-researched article. FemkeMilene (talk) 12:37, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from TheDoctorWho edit

  • I'm a little concerned about the bullet list, I see it was mentioned above; however, MOS:BULLETLIST states that "Bullets are used to discern, at a glance, the individual items in a list, usually when each item in the list is a simple word, phrase or single line of text, [...]. They are not appropriate for large paragraphs." which is what it is being used for here. As that guideline states there are always exceptions but I'm not sure that this necessarily is one.
    I think that as a sequence it is more readable in list form than in separate paragraphs, which give no clear indication of a logical sequence. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:17, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I missed MOS:EMBED so this should actually be alright.TheDoctorWho (talk) 18:16, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not as concerned with this one but have you considered adding something like {{Infobox spring}} or {{Infobox landform}} to the article?
    Eh, I think that for such a complex topic infoboxes would be unduly reductive. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:17, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Chile Route B-245 has been a red link for over two years now. I'm not knowledgeable enough on Chile Route's to know if this particular route is "notable and verifiable" but if its not it should [probably] be removed.
  • Scrolling through the rest of the article there's actually quite a few red links so same goes for any of those, unless their particularly notable or they're going to be created soon they should all be removed.
    See, I am pretty sure that all of these redlinks can have articles created for them. I don't think we remove redlinks just because the article doesn't exist yet. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:17, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:REDLINK specifically says that unless the subjects article is likely to be created soon OR unless its notable and verifiable to remove them. This isn't particularly a deal breaker for me, I'm just wanting your opinion on whether or not they meet those requirements. TheDoctorWho (talk) 16:40, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I think they all meet the "notable and verifiable", myself. Granted, being busy with other projects I don't intend to do a lot of work with these redlinks, but still. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:42, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    In that case they're fine, just to clear up my comments you're not obligated to work on any of the red links if you don't want to, I was just trying to make sure the article followed appropriate guidelines, which according to you, they do. TheDoctorWho (talk) 18:16, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Don't really have much to say other than this, with the comments above most people have addressed everything else. Thanks, TheDoctorWho (talk) 15:21, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Given that the above was addressed this article has my support. TheDoctorWho (talk) 18:16, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/El_Tatio/archive1&oldid=1049122412"