Talk:Huaynaputina: Difference between revisions

Huaynaputina is currently a Geography good article nominee. Nominated by ceranthor at 16:47, 15 April 2019 (UTC) An editor has indicated a willingness to review the article in accordance with the good article criteria. Further reviews are welcome from any editor who has not contributed significantly to this article (or nominated it), and can be added to the review page, but the decision whether or not to list the article as a good article should be left to the first reviewer.

Archives

Archive 1

This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present.

This article has not yet been rated on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Volcanoes B‑class High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Volcanoes, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of volcanoes, volcanology, igneous petrology, and related subjects on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.VolcanoesWikipedia:WikiProject VolcanoesTemplate:WikiProject VolcanoesWikiProject Volcanoes articles B This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Peru B‑class High‑importance This article is supported by WikiProject Peru. This project provides a central approach to Peru-related subjects on Wikipedia. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.PeruWikipedia:WikiProject PeruTemplate:WikiProject PeruPeru articles B This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. WikiProject Peru To-do: edit history watch purge Assess and prioritise articles (log) Check for copyvios at Special:Contributions/Priscilla D, tag as {{Db-copyvio}} where appropriate Create: Expand: new articles; top importance articles FAC / FLC: Peru national football team GAN: Merge requests: Amazonas before the Inca Empire, Chachapoyas culture Review: Shining Path, Universitario de Deportes Translate: National University of San Marcos Work on Lima, the current article improvement drive Wikify: articles needing attention Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Mountains B‑class High‑importance This article is part of WikiProject Mountains, a project to systematically present information on mountains. If you would like to participate, you can choose to edit the article attached to this page (see Contributing FAQ for more information), or visit the project page where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.MountainsWikipedia:WikiProject MountainsTemplate:WikiProject MountainsMountain articles B This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day section on February 19, 2009, February 19, 2010, February 19, 2011, February 19, 2013, February 19, 2015, February 19, 2017, February 19, 2018, and February 19, 2019.

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

​ 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)[reply]

Are you planning to use the "Wernke2009" ref? ceranthor 13:45, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

​ 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

​

• • 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@Jo-Jo Eumerus: Great - I'm going to work through and copyedit today. ceranthor 13:24, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

@Jo-Jo Eumerus: Leaving notes for you as I go: see [10], [11] (potentially more to come...) ceranthor 13:31, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

More notes: [12] ceranthor 14:40, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@Jo-Jo Eumerus: Also, here's another quick note: [13] ceranthor 16:35, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Another note. ceranthor 17:29, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

@Ceranthor: No, pretty much done expanding here. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:08, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Jo-Jo Eumerus: Great, working on it now. Another note: [14]. ceranthor 19:40, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Another two notes: [15]. ceranthor 20:08, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

@Jo-Jo Eumerus: Any interest in putting the sulfuric acid estimates into a table rather than bullets? ceranthor 14:43, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@Ceranthor: Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:39, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

@Jo-Jo Eumerus: Lemme read through in a bit. Wanted to read through impact once more. ceranthor 15:51, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

That expansion part is done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 17:46, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

​​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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply] 

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.