The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by SandyGeorgia 22:58, 8 April 2010 [1].

---

Cerro Azul (Chile volcano)[edit]

Cerro Azul (Chile volcano) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Nominator(s): Awickert, ceranthor Ruslik0 23:07, 12 March 2010 (UTC).[reply]

• Featured article candidates/Cerro Azul (Chile volcano)/archive1

Toolbox
Analysis Citation bot External links

I am nominating this for featured article because I feel it is a comprehensive, well-written, and interesting account of one of the most powerful volcanoes in the world. Cerro Azul's two greatest eruptions, the largest in South American history, were a bit difficult to find detailed information on at first. When I contacted Awickert and Ruslik0, we were able to improve the article from 4000 bytes of iffy prose to a tight article of 14 kilobytes. Their help has been invaluable, and should not go unrecognized. I'd also like to thank Malleus Fatuorum for copyediting as well as Eubulides for a quick alt text check. Note: I realize that this picture is missing copyright information; I am working on it. I am completely willing to respond to any comments, !votes, or suggestions and will try to do promptly. Thanks! ceranthor 23:07, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This is a WikiCup nomination. To the nominator: if you do not intend to submit this article at the WikiCup, feel free to remove this notice. Ucucha 23:14, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I'd forgotten about the WikiCup. :/ ceranthor 23:15, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. A dab link to precipitation. No dead external links. Alt text is fine (I made some edits). Ucucha 23:22, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I fixed the dab link. Thank you for the help! ceranthor 23:53, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Object. Like a few thousand other articles, this one has been changed from American English to British English, through the use of an overwhelmingly complex template, without understanding how to use it. I have long objected to the improper defaults to British English in ((convert)), yet it remains that way. Every editor should need to specify the spellings to be used. The problem here is exemplified by this edit two weeks ago by User:Malleus Fatuorum changing from:

Extended commentary on minor issue moved to talk; please advise when resolved on talk. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:28, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Gene Nygaard (talk) 01:33, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that this has been taken care of. Is there anything else that needs to be fixed? Awickert (talk) 18:39, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No. That's done. Striking my objection. Gene Nygaard (talk) 21:37, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment "immediately south of Descabezado Grande volcano" looks wrong; "immediately south of the Descabezado Grande volcano" or "immediately south of Descabezado Grande" maybe? I might be talking out of my arse. Another problem (previously raised with Ceranthor) is that a large chunk of the "threats and preparedness" section deals with Chilean volcanoes and the SVZ, not Cerro Azul specifically. Ironholds (talk) 15:59, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  "traversed as far as Brazil. Locally, after the 1932 eruption, vegetation was devastated, and the area remained "barren" until the 1990s" - any reason you can't use travelled rather than traversed? And why is "barren" in quotes? "After the 1932 eruption, the local vegetation was devastated" I'd suggest. Ironholds (talk) 16:53, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've tried to fix your concerns; tell me any others you have. ceranthor 16:57, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Seems all good. Ironholds (talk) 20:46, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comments -
• USGS or United States Geological Survey in the notes? Pick one (I prefer the later)

Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:25, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. ceranthor 16:57, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. If alt text is to be part of the FA criteria then it should be targetted at being helpful to its audience, not just a bunch of words written-through-gritted-teeth-because-someone-is-bound-to-object-if-it's-not-there. This, for instance, "Chile hosts multiple volcanoes. Cerro Azul is the northernmost, close to the city of Santiago. Three others that are close to each other (from north to south Copahue, Llaima, and Villarrica) are further south, and Cerro Hudson is the southernmost of the five" is a mini essay on the geography of Chile, not a succinct and helpful description of the image. The others are similar, some even mentioning colour. --Malleus Fatuorum 21:56, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Blame me, I wrote that piece. Alt text for maps needs to convey the most important information sighted readers get from the image (WP:ALT#Maps), and I think this alt text does that; if you have any suggestions for improvement, I would be happy to hear them. I don't see any inappropriate mentions of color in the alt text, and took out a few places where color was inappropriately mentioned a few days ago. Ucucha 00:28, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • The current alt-text guidelines are at best misguided and help nobody. My oppose stands. --Malleus Fatuorum 01:28, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm confused as to what you want me to change. Is it that you want the alt text to relate each image to the article, or make them more succinct, or both? ceranthor 01:35, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • The alt text should be describing the image, not telling those who read it more than the image itself does, or interpreting the image, and should be short and sweet, one sentence at most. It's a map of Chile's major volcanoes. That's it. Anything important about the information provided by the map should already be in the article body. --Malleus Fatuorum 01:40, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • When I got to this, the alt text was "A map displaying the major Chilean volcanoes.", which was indeed short and sweet but was inappropriate on two counts. First, it repeated the caption "Major Chilean volcanoes are marked by red triangles on this map" contrary to WP:ALT#Repetition. Second, it didn't convey the gist of the map as per WP:ALT#Maps. I reworded it to "Five major volcanoes range from Cerro Azul in central Chile, south through Copahue, Llaima, and Villarrica, to Cerro Hudson." which is still short and sweet, and conveys the gist much better. Eubulides (talk) 05:45, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is this any better? ceranthor 02:12, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it is, but this is even better. How could I tell from the picture that there was a glacier? And I thought that Ucucha claimed above to have removed all references to colour? --Malleus Fatuorum 03:08, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

All inappropriate references to color. Ucucha 03:17, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

All references to colour are inappropriate. --Malleus Fatuorum 03:53, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Color that is an important part of the visual appearance of the image should be mentioned in alt text. Currently the only color mentioned is "black", as in "black caldera", and that use seems appropriate. Perhaps the inappropriate references to color were removed before I got here? Eubulides (talk) 05:45, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Alt text for maps needs to convey the most important information sighted readers get from the image," and "should be short and sweet, one sentence at most", seems like a difficult dichotomy to straddle for complex diagrams. What is the verdict on things like the tectonic/volcanic map? Awickert (talk) 08:27, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We should take the advice of authorities in the field, like the RNIB. I quote from their guidelines on alt text for what they call complex images: "Complex images are images whose full meaning cannot be adequately described in a short phrase or sentence. This may include graphs, charts and maps. A brief name or description should be given in the ALT text, and a longer description of the content of the image given elsewhere."[2] --Malleus Fatuorum 13:30, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK - thank you. I'll fix them based on this. Awickert (talk) 17:14, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done unless other issues arise. Awickert (talk) 18:35, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That looks much better, thanks. But I don't think you can use templates in alt text; in any event, the alt text for the map in the infobox is broken. --Malleus Fatuorum 18:42, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The templates were removed here, so that fixes that problem. Eubulides (talk) 05:45, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! Awickert (talk) 05:52, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Further comments
  • I don't believe that the alt text should be telling me more than the image does. The alt text for the map in the infobox tells me that "Cerro Azul is located in East-central Chile, a country on the southwestern coast of South America that is approximately 4000 kilometers from North to South, but only about 175 kilometers from East to West." That is not describing the image but describing Chile. There is no scale on the map, so without looking at the alt text I have no way of knowing anything other than that Chile is long and thin on the east coast of South America.
  • Cerro Azul doesn't appear to be in the same place on the two maps it's shown on, seems to have moved south on the second of them. --Malleus Fatuorum 13:45, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Alt text shortened. Both maps appear to have it in the same place to me. In any case, the lat/long are cited to the USGS, as is the fig. I think that part of the issue is that the fig has a simplified geometry and is a different projection. Awickert (talk) 03:38, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - I'm not an expert on South American volcanoes, but I took a look through the article and it looks quite extensive. BT (talk) 01:19, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Image copyright review:
  • File:Cerro volcano in chile.jpg has no proper source and is almost certainly wrongly-licenced.
  • File:Magmaticarcandes.jpg has questionable sourcing.
  • File:Cerro hudson.jpg has no proper source.
• Others are OK; oppose pending resolution of these. Stifle (talk) 13:47, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The first one I am still sorting out. The second one is legitimate, I believe, given a review of the user's edits. I have provided the source for the third one. ceranthor 17:03, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This picture is extremely close; hopefully, I'll find it. Malleus, I am working on the alt text issues. I'm a bit time pressed so I';ll have to finish them tomorrow. ceranthor 17:08, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I just replaced the first image with one from the USGS. This resolves the copyright issue and should probably be the one that we use unless someone has found a better image and/or resolved the prior copyright issues. Awickert (talk) 16:45, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments. Looks good, but needs a bit of scrutinty for 1. Here's the lead:

• As the MoS says, try to avoid what should be triple compound items: "500-meter-(1,600 ft)-wide summit crater", made worse by the need to convert. Why not reverse? "summit crater 500 meters (1,600 ft) wide". And again, here, where the en dash makes it hard to comprehend: "creating an 8–9 square kilometer lava field". It requires "creating an 8–9-square-kilometer lava field", which is unacceptable. Try "creating a lava field of 8 to 9 square kilometers (conversion blah) in area".
• Why is "effusive" linked? The target is all about chemistry. Is this the technical meaning?
• "took place" -> "was"? Or "... erupted most recently in ..."?
• "Chile has almost 100 volcanoes," all piped. Perhaps make it neater and more focused by piping just "almost 100 volcanoes"? Tony (talk) 00:53, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed all of the above; thanks for the comments. Awickert (talk) 05:59, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. I have struck my oppose above not because I think the alt text is now acceptable – which I don't – but because I don't think it's fair to single out this one article for the failings of a supposed guideline that has not been properly thought through; I very much hope that this half-baked addition to the FA criteria will be removed in short order. --Malleus Fatuorum 02:01, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: I just looked through the "Threats and Preparedness" section (which I hadn't done prior to our nomination), and changed some stuff around. Just a heads-up. Awickert (talk) 08:34, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• The article is pretty much there, I believe. I have a few things that I wanted to point out.

• Second sentence is a bit awkward. The current phrasing makes it seem like the lower slopes are capped by the summit crater? I am not familiar with volcano terminology; is that accurate?
• The third paragraph of the lead looks like it would be better served for a Volcanoes in Chile article. Perhaps that needs to be reorganized to focus on the Threats and preparedness paragraph.

The point of that blurb is to connect the number of volcanoes in Chile to the threat from them.

• Does "Descabezado Grande" ever refer to anything other than the volcano? If not, "Descabezado Grande volcano" is probably redundant.
• Wikilink "caldera complexes" and "Holocene"?
• "500 meters (1,640 ft) deep struts" – meters should probably be singular,
• The tense in "First documented activity, 1846" needs to be made consistent. Right now, it is a mixture of past, present perfect, and present tenses.

I think I fixed this.

The second sentence still has both past and present tenses. In addition, the fourth sentence feels a little awkward now.

• The third sentence of "Early twentieth century" has some passive voice that doesn't need to be there.
• Wikilink "plume"?
• To the uninformed, the second sentence of "Major eruption, 1932" seems a like a non sequitor. How does a sentence about the frequency of the volcano's :activity flow from a clause about the the lack of large Plinian eruptions?
• Standardize your AMs and PMs.
• Choose either imperial or scientific notation and stick to it. Sometimes you have miles (km) and other times you have kilometers (mi).

I don't think there are any mi to kilometer converts in the article.

Second to last sentence of "Major eruption, 1932".

• The Mount Hudson picture, if one does not look at the caption, makes the reader think that that is a picture of Cerro Azul. I think it ought to be removed.

I modified the caption to clarify that it wasn't Cerro Azul. The reason I included it was because it was accessible and because Hudson is the best known of the Chilean volcanoes, IIRC.

Even so, it seems a bit misleading for someone who is only skimming the article. But it is your call.

• I don't really understand the part about the VDAP. If their goal is to help out with relief efforts, why are they outfitted with equipment to monitor :volcanoes?

Should be clarified.

• As a matter of fact, that entire section seems an amalgamation of things that have happened in the Andes in general and things that have happened in the craters of Cerro Azul. Perhaps it could be refocused?

How so?

Well, looking back on it, I'm not terribly sure why I made that comment. I suppose it isn't terribly important in any case.

• Why was the González-Ferrán source not used?

I have not been able to find it anywhere. I considered it, but then we were able to find excellent information from the Hildreth and Stern papers.

• If these could be fixed, I would probably be willing to support. NW (Talk) 22:13, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Except for the ones I've responded to, these are fixed.

I think I got to all of these now. Thanks! ceranthor 15:44, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support, I am happy supporting now. NW (Talk) 19:06, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comments
• Is "Azul" an accepted abbreviation for the volcano? Seems a bit odd to me.
• Azul has produced the largest eruptions ever in South America - Seems pretty awkward and leaves much to be desired. "Azul is responsible for South America's largest recorded eruptions"?
• In 1846, an [[Effusive eruption|effusive]] eruption formed the vent... - Why pipe the link?
• In 1932, 9.5 cubic kilometers (2.3 cu mi) of dacitic tephra erupted... - Sure, it's linked, but seriously...
• The last paragraph of the lead is taken out of context, and probably doesn't belong in the lead at all. I'd be much happier with some more info on the geology of this particular volcano.

–Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:31, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the useful comments.

• "Azul": I agree; I made all of them use the full name.
• Phrase replaced with your suggestion.
• The link is piped because "effusive" redirects to effusion, which isn't what we're talking about

• Well, I mean why is [[Effusive eruption|effusive]] eruption instead of [[effusive eruption]] used? –Juliancolton | ^Talk 05:08, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Well, isn't that obvious! Sure thing. To what lengths will my obliviousness take me next...? Awickert (talk) 07:38, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• In 1932, 9.5 cubic kilometers (2.3 cu mi) of dacitic tephra erupted...: what is wrong with "dacitic tephra"? I imagine that it is because it is technical language: "dacitic" is composition, "tephra" is morphology. We could say "ash" if the consensus is that a less-technical more-generic term in the lede is better.

• I think that would be better. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 05:08, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• OK - will do. Awickert (talk) 07:38, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I think that I agree with you on the last paragraph of the lede being out of place. Geology could be done, but ASAP for me (at least) is the weekend.

Awickert (talk) 04:36, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• No worries, I'll finish a review of the rest of the article before them. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 05:08, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Great, and thanks so much for your time! Awickert (talk) 07:38, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Further comments - As I noted above, the lead needs work, but since that will be taken care of in time...
• Volcanoes in Chile (including Cerro Azul) occur in the Central (CVZ), South (SVZ), and Austral Volcanic Zones (AVZ). - Why do we need the first parenthetical bit?
• The South Volcanic Zone, of which Cerro Azul is a part, runs through central and western Chile and extends south to Argentina. - Really clunky.
• ...that erupted in at least 12 volcanic episodes during the Quaternary period—the upper lava layers are dated at 340,000 years.[9][10] - Why a dash instead of a new sentence?
• with the majority of its eruptions in recorded history originating - See User:Tony1/Noun plus -ing.

• The issue here is rather the clumsy connector "with", which hardly ever works. Changed to "... but most of its eruptions in recorded history originated in Quizapu Crater, on the northern flank of Cerro Azul's cone." --Malleus Fatuorum 20:22, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you, Malleus. ceranthor 20:25, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• At between 3,080 and 3,230 meters (10,100 and 10,600 ft) elevation - Didn't you just say it was 10,801 ft?
• Cerro Azul is situated in the Mediterranean climate zone. It is characterized by hot and dry summers, but mild and wet winters. - No need for two sentences.
• Annual precipitation is up to 800 mm. - Needs a conversion into inches.
• Above 1600 m the slopes of mountains... - Same as above.

–Juliancolton | ^Talk 20:09, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Between the bunch of us, looks like these are taken care of. Thanks for your careful reading. (The elevation issue was due to two different sources; I decided to keep the Global Volcanism Program one, as the other paper talked a little too much about variability in the height for an article like this; the peak seems to be better.) Awickert (talk) 01:18, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Comments by Ruhrfisch. As requested, I have read the article and am making some copyedits. I also have some questions / comments that I will raise here. Looks generally good and I am leaning support once my comments have been addressed.
• Would it make sense to give the elevation of the summit in the lead? This volcano is a kind of mountain, and it seems odd to have an article on a mountain without the height in the lead. If there is some WikiProject Volcano guideline against this, I will defer to that.

  But the height is in the infobox? Ruslik_Zero 15:49, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  I looked at the Geography FAs with "mount" in the title and Loihi Seamount, Mount Rushmore, Mount St. Helens, and Mount Tambora all mention elevation in the lead somehow. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 18:22, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  It was added. Ruslik_Zero 18:39, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  Thanks, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 18:50, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Quizapu seems to be an alternative name for the volcano - two of the references use "Volcan Quizapu" in their titles. Should Quizapu be listed as an alternate name in the lead?

  It was added. Ruslik_Zero 18:39, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Organization - this goes from Chile to South America then back to Chile. In general, going from more general to more specific topics flows better. Is there a reason not start this with South America, then go to Chile? Volcanic activity in Chile varies widely, and includes explosive eruptions and both subaerial and submarine basalt flows. Volcanism in the Andes is caused by subduction of the Nazca and Antarctic tectonic plates under the South American Plate. Volcanoes in Chile occur in the Central (CVZ), South (SVZ), and Austral Volcanic Zones (AVZ).

  I changed Andes to Chilean Andes. Ruslik_Zero 15:49, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  Works for me, thanks Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 18:22, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Would it help to link subduction?
• This sentence is not clear to me Nearly 100 Quaternary (Pleistocene- or Holocene-age) volcanoes exist in the country, as well as 60 complexes and caldera systems.[3] Does the nearly 100 figure include the 60 complexes and caldera systems, or are there nearly 160 total volcanoes and complexes and calderas? Seems like the latter, but I was not sure.

  This was changed. Ruslik_Zero 18:39, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• In the Local setting section, I think it would help to add that Quizapu crater is part of Cerro Azul Its largest historical eruption was at Quizapu crater, and its most active volcanoes are Llaima and Villarrica.[7] I know Quizapu is mentioned twice in the lead, but this is the first it is mentioned in the body of the article, so adding it is part of Cerro Azul here might help.

  Added. Ruslik_Zero 18:39, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Needs to be converted to cubic miles too The cone of Cerro Azul has a total volume of about 11 km3, and is a young feature, formed in the Holocene.[10] and this needs to be spelled out (meters) and needs conversion for feet too The summit of Cerro Azul is crowned by an asymmetric crater about 500 m in diameter.[10]

OK, I am stopping for now, more soon. Please revert or fix my copyedits if they have introduced errors. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 00:39, 6 April 2010 (UTC) More comments from Ruhrfisch[reply]

• Would it be possible to translate the Spanish names into English? So for example, Cerro del Medio or Volcan Nuevo or Caracol, Crater los Quillayes, Crater la Resolana, and Crater sin Nombre (the last just means "Crater without a name" so is that really an official name?)

  Cerro Azul was at least translated. Ruslik_Zero 18:39, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  My Spanish is very fragmentary, I think this would be helpful if it is possible. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 18:54, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  I translated those that could be translated. Ironically, from what I understand, "Crater sin Nombre" is the name of the crater. At least this is what the USGS has. Quillayes and Resolana are probably some local proper nouns that do not translate, so I haven't provided translations for those. Awickert (talk) 05:16, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I am not very fond of using "~" in The radius of the crater floor, which is the current inner vent, is ~150 meters (500 ft), ... - could you use about or approximately or some other word(s) instead of "~"?

  Fixed. Ruslik_Zero 18:39, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• It is unclear what the "It" in this sentence is refering to - the crater floor? the crater rim? Perhaps even the wall of the crater? It is cut by two long, dacitic lava flows which are probably the remnants of a dome or an eruption.[13]

  Fixed. Ruslik_Zero 18:39, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Temperatures need to be converted to Fahrenheit too In the Andes the annual average maximum temperatures lie in the range of 20–25 °C, while minimum temperatures are below 0 °C.

  What for? Ruslik_Zero 18:39, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  Just a little thing called MOS:CONVERSIONS ;-) Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 18:54, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  I did it myself, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 19:37, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Problem sentence Above 1600 m (5249 ft) the slopes of mountains are covered by Alpine like steppe, while below there are zones of Nothofagus forest, Hygrophilous forest, Sclerophylous forest and matorral. 1) Both Hygrophilous forest and Sclerophylous forest link to Mediterranean forests, woodlands, and scrub but there is no mention of Hygrophilus forest in that article. 2) Does the sentence follow WP:ITALIC - Nothofagus (Latin) is italicized but matorral (Spanish) is not.

  (1) I delinked Hygrophilous as there is currently no article about it. (2) Fixed. Ruslik_Zero 18:39, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Unclear that we have read specifically about "the two herdsmen" - could the first "the" be removed? That night, the two herdsmen near the site heard a continuous roar punctuated by loud bangs...

  Removed the "the", Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 19:37, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I would avoid the use of today in Today, the field is twice that size.[19] the ref is from 1992, would "As of 1992, the field was twice that size.[19]"

  Fixed. Ruslik_Zero 18:39, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Would this Beginning in 1907, though with a possible precursor explosive event in 1903, Cerro Azul once again erupted. be clearer as something like After a possible precursor explosive event in 1903, Cerro Azul once again [definitely?] erupted in 1907.

  Fixed. Ruslik_Zero 18:58, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• It seems odd that the History section ends with 1932. There is a brief mention of the 1967 eruption as the last one, but were there any eruptions between 1932 and 1967? What happened in 1967? What type of eruption was it? How long did it last?

  It has not ended yet. Ruslik_Zero 15:49, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  Then I think that needs to be made clearer in the article. I assumed it had a small eruption in 1967 and was quiet since. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 18:22, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  I added a new paragraph. Ruslik_Zero 18:58, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I agree with the above comment that the Threats and preparedness section seems not to be very foucsed on Cerro Azul. I will think about ways to try and make it more focused.

  I added new information. Ruslik_Zero 18:58, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• The article seems to be a bit overlinked in places - phreatic eruption, tephra, dacite - my rule of thumb is to link terms once in the lead, once more at first use in the article body, and in tables or captions if needed.

I am done with comments for now. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 01:34, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I tried tweaking the first paragraph of the Threats and preparedness section to focus a bit more on Cerro Azul. I think the second paragraph could also be more focused if the current first sentence Every known type of eruption (Hawaiian, Strombolian, Plinian, Subplinian, phreatomagmatic, and Vulcanian) has occurred at some point in the range. were followed by something about the types of eruption known to have occurred at Cerro Azul. I was asked to come here and comment on this FAC by one of the three nominators - it is a bit disconcerting to have no repsonse(s) to my review comments in over 24 hours. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 11:06, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have changed my comments to support above. I would still prefer to see more translation of Spanish names and something done about overlinking, but it is close enough to support now. Thanks for an interesting article! Nicely done, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 19:37, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ruhrfisch! Thanks for the help. Sorry for not getting back to you sooner; it's been a crazy week for me. I just did the translations, dealt with as many overlinks as I could readily find, and added in the Cerro Azul specific eruptions (thanks for that suggestion). Awickert (talk) 05:37, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. The length of this comment might make it seem like I've done a half-cocked review, but I've read this a few times over the last couple of days. Most of what I would have complained about before seems to be resolved. Prose is fine; the sources I was able to check online pass verification. I noticed the unstruck image concern above; from what I can see, it's now properly sourced. Nothing really to complain about! Nice work, Steve ^T • C 11:51, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.