This article is about a rather inconspicuous volcano in Peru which was however in 1600 the source of the largest volcanic eruption in recent history of the Andes. This eruption resulted in widespread devastation of the surrounding area and in a volcanic winter that led to the Russian famine of 1601–03 and may have played a role in enhancing the Little Ice Age. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 11:48, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
Images appear to be freely licensed. It's a shame there aren't more/better photographs of the mountain itself. (t · c) buidhe 20:36, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
Aye, although it's not really a mountain - more like a group of small craters nested in a lateral valley. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 11:02, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
Accessibility improvements: add alt text to the images per MOS:ACCIM and row and column scopes, row headers, and a caption to the table per MOS:DTAB. Heartfox (talk) 18:42, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
@Heartfox:Added ALT text to the non-decorative images. I confess though that I have no idea how to do table accessibility. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 11:02, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
None of the images are decorative (I'm pretty sure that's just like a basic background image or something), so they do need an alt attribute as they serve a purpose (otherwise they wouldn't be in the article). You can just do "refer to caption" if it makes sense. For the tables, everything is listed at MOS:DTAB under the data tables header. It's just adding a couple of words and symbols. Heartfox (talk) 03:37, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
Done, mostly, but the explanation for the table is a little opaque so I don't guarantee I got it right. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:41, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
I added row scopes for you :) For the California map alt text, it's probably better to just say "a 1650 map of California" as "California used to be depicted as an island in maps" is not really a text-version of the image. Heartfox (talk) 18:31, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
Or maybe "A 1650 map of California depicting it as an island" or something. Idk I'm not an expert. Heartfox (talk) 18:34, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
Went with the latter as showing California as an island is an important point here. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 20:19, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
Can the words fumarole and amphitheatre be explained in the lead?
Added, although I am not sure if it's necessary. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 11:02, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
the radiative forcing of the volcano is now given in three significant digits. Given we can't give too many ifs and buts compared to a scientific paper, two significant digits is more appropriate I believe.
Is there a more recent estimate of temperature decrease? Those reconstructions have become vastly more accurate of the last 20 years.
Probably, but I am not sure where to find one. Google Scholar shows 1430 sources on the volcano and finding specific ones is going to be hard. If this is what you have in mind it endorses the in-article estimate I believe. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 11:02, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
I'm not sure how the source about sunspots should be interpreted. The way I read it, visible sunspots are potential phenomenon of atmospheric aerosols, but not particularly of this volcano. Table 1 of that paper includes a list of actual observations, which don't include the sunspots.
I see. Would it better to remove the claim? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 11:02, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
Yeah, or replace it with one of the observations in Table 1. Or prove me wrong by following the three citations given, if you have the time. FemkeMilene (talk) 08:16, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
The three citations do not support sunspot changes, so removed the mention. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:41, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
In Arequipa, houses and the cathedral collapsed during mass after an earthquake on 27 February, concomitant with the beginning of the second stage. -> can this be reworded so that the sentence rolls without as many mid-sentence cites? FemkeMilene (talk) 17:54, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
I looked at it and I don't really see how to reword it without leaving at least some mid-sentence cites. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:22, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
It is the largest volcanic eruption during recorded history in the Andes redundant
For comparison, another large Holocene eruption in the Central Andes which exceeded Huaynaputina's in size, the eruption of Cerro Blanco in Argentina about 2,300 ± 60 BCE, erupted a bulk volume of 110 km3 (26 cu mi) of rock, equivalent to a volcanic explosivity index of 7. -> which exceeded Huaynaputina's in size redundant, leaving it out makes sentence flow better. Starting with For example, the eruption of Cerro Blanco in Argentina about 2,300 ± 60 BCE further improves flow
Did the first, but "for example" doesn't entirely gel with the rest of the sentence. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:22, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
The tephra was emplaced in a major westerly lobe and a minor northerly lobe -> dont understand. Easier synonym for emplaced?
Replaced and several other instances except for one where "deposited" is a little misleading. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:22, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
A colonial wine industry -> the?
Eh, I was thinking that "the" implies we already know of its existence. Replaced it anyway. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:22, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
and the Spaniards for poor habits -> sentence doesn't roll for me.. Not sure what is meant with poor habits
The word the source uses is Spanish: amancebados which apparently translates to "sleeping" in the sense of sexual intercourse. I've changed the word but I think a better word is needed. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:22, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
analysis showed that seismic activity was concentrated around the amphitheatre with no recorded earthquakes within it -> redundant with previous clause
and on the pumice deposits from the 1600 eruption it only occurs during the wet season -> change word order. Only on third reading I discovered that deposits wasn't the verb. FemkeMilene (talk) 17:06, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
On the other hand, mythology held that the lack of sacrifices had upset the devil who had sent a large snake[e] named chipiroque or pichiniqui to announce "horrifying storms" – which eventually ended up killing the natives anyway -> dont understand this sentence
Gah. Writing that section out of disparate sources was a nightmare. Rewrote this a little but I don't think it can be made much clearer than this. I don't like the "according to mythology" formulation but I can't think of anything better. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 11:08, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
The Huaynaputina eruption has also been associated with perchlorate deposition in Greenland. -> explain the relevance of this. Associated is vague, perchlorate is jargon. Feels like an add-on to an otherwise lovely paragraph.
While an older hypothesis by de Silva and Francis held that the entry of water into the magmatic system may have triggered the eruption, a 2006 study argues that the entry of new dacitic magma into a pre-existent dacitic magma system triggered the 1600 eruption; furthermore movement of deep andesitic magmas that had generated the new dacite produced movements within the volcano -> cut sentence in two? FemkeMilene (talk) 18:33, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
Conclusion: I'm still finding prose that I do not find that engaging, which prevents me from supporting at this point. I'm likely to support only after a round of copy-editing with somebody better at prose than me. FemkeMilene (talk) 18:33, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
I've dealt with the issues flagged here, FemkeMilene, but I take that there are more prose problems than the ones mentioned here, yes? Do you or User:SandyGeorgia have an idea where to ask for help on them (on or off FAC)? I think I have basically used up the available prose resources we have. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 11:08, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
Jo-Jo, sorry to say that (as we all know :), prose is not my strength. I go through your work pre-FAC to catch as much of the jargon and MOS stuff as I can, but can't usually be helpful in bringing prose to a higher level. I do see how often you are constrained by your citation style, where you want to scrupulously cite each little piece, which can result in prose difficulties; perhaps over time you will move towards more citation bundling, which might free up your prose somewhat. Also, because your subject matter is highly technical, you are a bit constrained in soliciting help from GOCE, and I wouldn't go there; I am afraid they would do more damage in terms of changing meaning. I can only suggest some of the editors who have helped out at your articles in the past; perhaps one of them will jump in. @ComplexRational, Fowler&fowler, and Iridescent:. Alternately, Gog the Mild might be willing to recuse for a copyedit, as he is competent to this task. Unfortunately, one of our most able copyeditors, Tony1 has been alienated from the FAC process, and we no longer have Eric Corbett. Good luck, and I'm sorry I can't be more useful. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:36, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
Comment, I engaged pre-FAC on talk, please ping me after other, lesser involved reviewers have been through. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:55, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
"...Huaynaputina's eruption commenced on 16 February 1600". The cited source says 19 February
"it is also spelled ... Guagua Putina". The cited source doesn't say that it is spelled as such. It is talking of a supposedly erroneous reference in a newspaper article that Guagua Putina and Misti are the same. Web search shows that the newspaper article was indeed correct i.e. Misti is called Guagua Putina.
 "Volcán Huaynaputina" [Huaynaputina Volcano]. Recursos Turisticos. Retrieved 27 March 2019: unreachable. Any archived link?
Linked the former, the latter were already linked. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:37, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
"been about 400-metre (1,300 ft) wide" --> 400 metre; "200-metre (660 ft) wide" → 200 metre (also 70-metre, 30-metre etc.)
Hmm, my impression was that the hyphen is the correct grammar here. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:37, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
IMO, when describing it, hyphen isn't used (e.g. The well is 100 meters deep); when referring to something, it is used (e.g. A 100-meter-deep well). That's how I think. Maybe a native speaker may better guide here.
"dated to 9,700 ± 190, less than 7,480 ± 40 years ago and 5,750 years before present, respectively." Drop "years ago"
No; "years ago" and "before present" are not the same unit. I think the former needs to be made "present"-independent but I am not sure how. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:37, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
"although it is known that non-volcanic mountains were also offered sacrifices in southern Peru." that → whether?
No, we are making a definitive statement here. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:37, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
Oops, seems I read it as "it is unknown". lol.
I had sort of abandoned the review as I was unwilling to oppose. Since the nom is going to be archived now, I will describe my main concern. Addressing of which, I believe, will be useful in the future nom and attract more reviews.
The article is written like a journal paper, assuming good deal of background knowledge and familiarity with jargon. Especially, the sections Geology and Eruption history, to lesser extent also Geography, are very difficult to follow, with number of unexplained technical terms, and allusions to not so self-evident facts, appearing almost every next line, and details that are suitable only in a research article. Someone with no knowledge of the subject will almost certainly be lost. Some examples follow:
"It is likely that the development of the later Huaynaputina volcano within the composite volcano is coincidental, although a similar tectonic stress field controlled the younger vents."
"Volcanic activity in that zone has moved since the Jurassic from the present-day coast region where remnants persist in the Cordillera de la Costa eastward into the actual Andes and the present-day volcanic arc, where it is defined by stratovolcanoes."
"The basement underneath Huaynaputina is formed by almost 2-kilometre-thick (1.2 mi) sediments and volcanic intrusions of Paleozoic to Mesozoic age including the Yura Group as well as the Cretaceous Matalaque Formation of volcanic origin."
"In 1962, there were reportedly no fumaroles within the amphitheatre, though fumaroles occur in the amphitheatre close to the three vents. There is a fumarole on the third vent, and fumaroles occur in association with dykes that crop out in the amphitheatre." This is unencyclopedic style and typical of research papers. It should be changed, for example, to something like: "Although no fumaroles were detected in 1962, several have been reported in the amphitheatre recently.
"At least one of the vents has been described as an ash cone." trivial.
"Northeast-east of Huaynaputina, the terrain drops off steeply (2.3 km or 1.4 mi vertically and 6 km or 3.7 mi horizontally) into the Río Tambo valley, which runs southward and then westward as it rounds Huaynaputina." Stuff inside the brackets is to be dropped and description of valley simplified.
I understand that explaining every term and phenomena is not possible, but relying solely on links is also not helpful. I think creating a balance is possible. AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 21:39, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
I realize that it's poor form for me to reply to examples of concerns, but I don't agree that these examples are too unclear for a lay audience. Knowing exactly what the Matalaque Formation is, for example, isn't necessary to understand the article subject and it can't really be explained within the text without a lot of distraction. I don't entirely agree with the other points, either - even a layperson knows that "vent" can simply be a hole, rather than a hill. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 12:38, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
I partially agree. I think the sentence with the fumaroles is indeed difficult to read, as is the second example. Jargon is easier to place in context when the sentence structure is easier. I don't mind the mention of Matalaque Formation, even though I have no idea what it is. Not important for the overall sentence. FemkeMilene (talk) 17:04, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
This nomination has been open for nearly five weeks and has yet to attract a support. Unless there are a couple of indications that reviewers consider it worthy of promotion over the next two or three days, it is liable to be archived. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:26, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
I plan to come back on Thursday to finish a source review. Am I right in my understanding that that involves a) checking that all sources are reliable b) spot-checking various sources (how many?) and c) checking if formatting is consistent? Or is c not considered part of the source review? FemkeMilene (talk) 17:45, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
To my understanding, it's all three points. Of course, I am the nominator so... Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 12:39, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
FemkeMilene, yes - all three. c is part of a source review. b, given that Jo-Jo is an experienced nominator, would be covered by five or six random checks; although if these raised any issues you would likely want to do a few more. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:54, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
Source review by FemkeMilene
Formatting: mostly fine.
I'm noticing a missing superscript in 14C in a title,
you do write 'in Spanish' explicitly, but don't do so for the french source.
If you mean Juvigné 2008, it does actually say so. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 11:08, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
Largest explosive eruption in historical times in the Andes at Huaynaputina volcano, a.d. 1600, southern Peru -> they use mini-capitals, standard writing is normal capitals, never seen it written a.d.
Paredes, Japura; Blanca, Saida -> I don't think this name is appropriately formatted. It should be Japura Paredes as surnames and SAIDA BLANCA as first names I believe. In the 'thank you', you can read that Japura is comes from the father and Paredes from the mother, so seems standard Spanish naming convention.
Reliable sourcing: there are a couple of AGU meeting abstracts, which aren't peer reviewed. Are they all used for uncontroversial facts?
Spot checking: I've done 10 checks, one possible minor disparity, one source that is possibly too old
As a result, natives and Franciscan friars reached the summit of that volcano and threw relics of saints into its crater -> this sentence implies the natives may have contributed to to throwing in relics into the volcano, which isn't what the source says. (Also; it's not that important that they reached the summit, follows from the fact that they threw in stuff)
Their formation may have been stimulated by the entry of mafic magmas into the magmatic system -> 2001 source. Is this amount of uncertainty still warranted or has science progressed? FemkeMilene (talk) 18:33, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
A bit yes, since more recent publications have discussed different magma compositions. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 11:08, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
Regretfully this does not show signs of gaining a consensus for promotion any time soon, so I am going to archive it. The normal two week break before a further nomination will not apply. Gog the Mild (talk) 10:38, 26 March 2021 (UTC)