Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Llullaillaco/1

Llullaillaco

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.

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review

Result: Clearly meets GA. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 18:36, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is another of my previous good articles which has just received a large rewrite and expansion, pending a nomination to featured article candidacies. I'd like to check that the current form does still satisfy the GA criteria. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 12:50, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The article seems to clearly meet the GA standards still.

There is one unsuitably old source in the climate section, about the early Holoceen maximum being hotter than today. Today is much hotter than 28 years ago, ands accuracy in paleoclimate reconstructions is much much higher. There are prose quibbles I have which I can leave on the talk page. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 07:45, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Are you familiar with more recent sources that discuss the Norte Chico climate during the Holocene? And yes, I'd like to know about the prose quibbles, if I may ask. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:10, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not familiar with any local reconstructions. If you look at this 2022 reconstruction, you see that the pre global warming peak temperature at 23 S didn't take place in the early Holocene, but more like the late Holocene. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 10:29, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

and the active lithium prospect "Proyecto Mariana" at Salar de Llullaillaco. I know it usually takes over 10 years to open a mine, but with lithium in high demand a more recent update would be good here. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 07:50, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:10, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Non-GA-relevant proses quibble examples:
- Llullaillaco has been active in historical time, making it the highest historically active volcano on Earth. Mid-sentence cites impede readability. Sometimes they're unavoidable, but here the first sentence fragment is completely unnecessary, as it's already implied by the second sentence fragment
  - Pulled one reference. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:10, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Sentences are often a bit too long for nice flow. For instance, you can split the sentence about the ceremonial path like this: A ceremonial Inca path, starting from the tambo, leads up to the volcano. Spanning 1.5–2 metres (4 ft 11 in – 6 ft 7 in) in width, it narrows on steep sections and is delineated by wooden posts and cairns, likely to ensure visibility under snow cover. I use ChatGPT for this kind of copy-editing a lot, asking it to improve flow or write things more concisely. Might be an idea for the top-20 long sentences in the article.
  - Hrm, it seems like that sentence is already split? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:10, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- It is most often associated with either convective or cyclonic activity during summer and winter, respectively --> the word respectively forces a reader to reread earlier parts of a sentence to match elements. Here, you can rewrite as "It is most often associated with either convective activity during summer or cyclonic activity during winter".
  - Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:10, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Only a few climate data are available on Llullaillaco --> This will feel grammatically ambiguous, given that data is usually not used as something countable. You can use alternatives such as "Limited climate data is available on Llullaillaco"
  - Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:10, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Overall, I would ask for a copy-edit before you nom at FA, or make use of LLMs for it instead. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 08:30, 30 March 2024 (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.