Talk:Tocorpuri

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Buidhe (talk · contribs) 21:19, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

   For the most part, the article is quite well written. Nice work! The technical language used seems necessary and appropriate for the subject matter, rather than excessive jargon.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):

   "Its peak height is most commonly given as 5,808 metres (19,055 ft)" — to avoid WP:OR, a secondary source explicitly stating that this figure is most common is needed. See WP:RS/AC
   Earwig check was clean
   "Occasionally, the summit area is covered with snow" This is not supported by the source, which says nothing about how often snow occurs. The most you could say is that it was once imaged with snow on it, but that seems rather trivial.

   That can't be done - we don't have secondary sources on elevation, really; Lucchi 2009 is the most recent one and is about field work so probably the most reliable for WP:RS purposes. I've put "recent" instead of "common". Regarding the snow thing ... I dunno. Many of these mountains are ice-free due to the dry climate so it's a bit more notable than otherwise, but we only have that source as confirmation. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 14:20, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

   I don't doubt that the ice thing is true (you're the expert) but it's not directly stated by the source, so I have to conclude that it is OR. (t · c) buidhe 18:36, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

Other comments

• First note is awkwardly phrased and positioned. I would either integrate it into the article text or delete.

  I've recast that sentence. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 14:20, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

• Likewise, I think the note giving the etymology of the name would be better placed somewhere in the article text.

  Moved it up. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 14:20, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

• "lies on Chile's Antofagasta Department and on Bolivia's Sur Lipez Department" — IDK what "lies on" means here.

  Changed to "in". Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 14:20, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

• " pre-Hispanic road" is it known who built the road?

  Presumably the people of the Formative Period, which the source does specify but not the people. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 14:20, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

• " tuffaceous breccia" Perhaps not, but this seems like it could be rephrased to be less jargony. Eg. "tuff" is more easily understood than tuffaceous.

  Went for tuff-like. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 14:20, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

• " Tertiary ignimbrites," Wikipedia article Tertiary says the term is mostly obsolete. Is there any way to be more specific about the time frame, i.e. state explicitly how long ago these formed?

  I don't think so; Paleogene is too old, Neogene too and Neogene-Quaternary might not cover possibly Oligocene-age ignimbrites. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 14:20, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

• "Quaternary volcanics", similar, consider replacing with the age in plain numbers

  Honestly, I think that, given the sparse radiometric dating of such units, sticking with the term is better. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 14:20, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

• "reportedly" MOS:WTW, if necessary to attribute I think "reported to" makes it sound less like we are casting doubt on it

  Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 14:20, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

• "Déruelle et al. 1979" or "Déruelle 1979"? If there are multiple authors, should be made clear in bibliography.

  It's just one, so changed it. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 14:20, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

• There are a couple duplicate links; article is short enough not to need them.

  Removed them. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 14:20, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

(t · c) buidhe 21:47, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

@Buidhe: Anything else missing? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:03, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

As stated above, I don't doubt that the ice thing is true (you're the expert) but it's not directly stated by the source, so I have to conclude that it is OR. (t · c) buidhe 17:04, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

@Buidhe: Changed it to remove the "occasional". That there are reports of snow cover is unquestionable, but not the timing. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 19:10, 6 March 2021 (UTC)