Jump to content

Talk:Quelccaya Ice Cap/GA1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA Review

[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Femkemilene (talk · contribs) 08:38, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]


Will be reviewing this slowly over the next seven days. First impression is good, like all of your articles very detailed :). I might give some feedback that is not necessary to address for GA which I'll indicate as (Not GA: comment). Femke Nijsse (talk) 08:38, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Lede

[edit]

Geography

[edit]

Femke Nijsse (talk) 11:12, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Femkemilene:Answered some issues. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:06, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The ice cap

[edit]

Geography

[edit]
  • (not GA: I find this section difficult to read. Would it be possible to put some of this information in a table instead?)
    I don't think this can be table-ified to any substantial degree. I am a little unhappy with the wording of several parts of it myself and have rewritten it a bit. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:28, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Physical structures of the ice

[edit]
  • with a crust of ice lying above snow. The source indicates that this was encountered once, not that this is the normal state of being. As far as I'm aware, normally what happens (glaciers/ice sheets in general, never heard of this specific one) is that the top layer is snow, then a layer of firn and only then you get ice. I think that snow can also be somewhat hard, so it might still have been snow. Am I wrong here?
    I dunno, but it sounds contentious to me so I've removed it. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:28, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't quite understand this sentence: caves associated with crevasses when they roof over. (also, maybe group the references at the end of sentence again)
    Edited; better now? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:28, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Physical-chemical traits of ice

[edit]

Femke Nijsse (talk) 15:57, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Femkemilene:Replied to additional points. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:28, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Geomorphology

[edit]

@Jo-Jo Eumerus: this was added non-chronologically.


Climate

[edit]

Biota

[edit]

Scientific research

[edit]

(Enjoyed reading this section :))

natural history

[edit]

Femke Nijsse (talk) 19:10, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Femkemilene:Resolved these issues. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 21:00, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Present retreat

[edit]
  • with rapid deglaciation underway during the late 20th century -> Can you replace this with a more modern source stating since the late 20th century? (If you wait 3 days, the new IPCC report will be out! But there should be a lto of other sources available)
    Not sure that this is necessary; do you know any source. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 11:45, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The new report is out: https://www.ipcc.ch/srocc/home/. I don't think the sentence is relevant per se, but if you include it under a heading of 'presenst retreat', it would be weird to talk about something that is 20 years past. Femke Nijsse (talk) 07:58, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Femkemilene:Assuming that this contains all of the report, it doesn't seem like it says anything about the retreat, it just makes predictions of the future temperature. Would that be worth adding? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:34, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hydrology

[edit]


Other requirements

[edit]
  • complies with relevant MoS (1b). no copyvio, pictures have licence, broad in coverage, well sources, stable, neutral. While my preference is less detailed articles, it can be argued in good faith that it is written in summary style. .

The only GA requirement I think might not be entirely met is understandably to broad audience. Could you have a look whether you could simplify or explain some more jargon. The body of the article is tailored towards a university audience I'd guess, but it's still nice to have discipline-specific terminology a bit more explained. Femke Nijsse (talk) 10:33, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Femke Nijsse (talk) 10:33, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Femkemilene:Addressed more points. I prefer to write detailed articles, myself, there are many kinds of readers and some want the details. Regarding jargon, you'll probably need to flag some of that problematic jargon; I know it so I can't readily spot the unclear bits. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 11:45, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I think I might know a bit too little about geology to be able to say what is bad jargon (3rd year Bachelor terms?) and what is okay jargon (1st year Bachelor). I'll give it a try though. Did you see I skipped geomorphology and went over it later? Femke Nijsse (talk) 17:11, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Femkemilene:Er, no, I didn't notice. I guess the problem there is that we cannot really work without jargon in that section. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:28, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]