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
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
All sources look to be scholarly sources, which makes this easy. I note the use of some conference proceedings, which I believe are acceptable at the GA level, but I would question their use at FAC as they are not peer-reviewed in the usual sense. They also don't seem to be used for anything particularly controversial, though I'm not entirely certain what controversy would look like on this article.
The Guzman et al 2017 source needs some publisher information.
FN1d-g discuss specific ignimbrites, not named on page 3; I assume you're referring to the map, which is verging on interpretation but defensible here I think because the authors aren't going to spell out something so basic; but at the moment you have one source for their name and another for their location that doesn't name them, and that's not 100% ideal.
"Part of the Argentine Andes' volcanic segment, it is considered a member of the Central Volcanic Zone." CVZ is a zone, not a group, surely? "Member" isn't appropriate.
"At its heart lies the Altiplano-Puna volcanic complex (APVC)" I'm confused by this; Coranzuli is a single caldera, is it not part of the APVC, rather than the other way around?
Much better, but now the connection between the APVC and Coranzuli is missing; I've made a tweak, if you don't like it feel free to address it a different way.
And if my understanding above is correct, I don't know why the APVC's behavior is first-paragraph material. It would be preferable, I think, to focus on the caldera itself; it's size and geology perhaps.
Oddly, I think it's acceptable here since Coranzuli and these volcanoes are more commonly discussed as components of the APVC than separately.
Jo-Jo Eumerus (
talk)
19:54, 7 August 2023 (UTC)reply
I don't think it's a huge issue, so okay.
Was Coranzuli itself the source of the four ignimbrites? Perhaps I misunderstood the Guzman source, but I got the impression it is the name given to one caldera within a complex that produced all of that geological activity.
Okay, but that's not currently clear (and if something similar applies to the highway, that's not clear either). It currently sounds like the town is some distance away, and its residents engage in herding and agriculture. Vanamonde (
Talk)21:21, 7 August 2023 (UTC)reply
"It has dimensions of 14 by 14 kilometres (8.7 mi × 8.7 mi)[13] or 16 by 12 kilometres (9.9 mi × 7.5 mi)" Suggest reframing the uncertainty as "dimensions have been estimated as..."
Readers ignorant of Spanish will not recognize "Cerro" for what it is; I suggest tweaking the introduction of "Cerro Coranzulí" to make it clear it's a name given to the peak.
Is there any information on the etymology of the volcano? Related: I assume the caldera, presumably investigated after the peak was named, takes its name from the latter; but is that something you could source?
"form mesa landscapes" Perhaps this has a specific meaning in geology, but it does not read grammatically correct to me; "forms mesas in the surrounding landscape" is what I'd suggest.
"Other mountains are Cerro Moraya and..." this is also grammatically odd. Which other mountains? Others part of the APVC? Others within 50km? Others in Argentina?
Okay, but some reworking is still needed; we're saying "other mountains at...[mountain]". It doesn't make grammatical sense. It may be simplest to say "other nearby peaks". Vanamonde (
Talk)23:25, 8 August 2023 (UTC)reply
"as well as as-yet undiscovered buried calderas." This needs a qualifier like "presumed" or "expected"; if they're undiscovered, we can't definitively say they're there...
A little sparse on images...I see an image of the APVC in that article; is that something you could use? And how about an illustrative image of the dominant minerals? Just a suggestion.
Okay on the minerals, but you yourself said above that Coranzuli is usually discussed in the context of the APVC, to the point where we're discussing the APVC's geology in the first paragraph. Illustration is one of the GA criteria, when possible, and it's clearly possible here. Vanamonde (
Talk)23:25, 8 August 2023 (UTC)reply
Final comment, in addition to the replies above; I'd suggest a hatnote to disambiguate from the town and explain the title (assuming this isn't in fact the primary topic?). Vanamonde (
Talk)19:23, 13 August 2023 (UTC)reply
Passing, all comments addressed. I'm not too happy over the images: given the prominence the text gives to the APVC I think an image of it would be entirely appropriate; but in the absence of images of Coranzuli itself it's not a GA fail issue. Vanamonde (
Talk)00:10, 14 August 2023 (UTC)reply
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.