Nevado del Ruiz

Previous peer review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

• A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for November 2008.

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I know it needs some work before becoming featured, and I'd like to identify and fix the issues specifically raised here in order to bring it to FA standards.

Thanks, —Ceran ♦ (talk) 00:13, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Gotta cut back on those one sentence paragraphs, as a start. ~the editorofthewiki ^{(talk/contribs/editor review)}~ 00:38, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Have you read any of the books mentioned at the FAC? ~the editorofthewiki ^{(talk/contribs/editor review)}~ 00:43, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  Honestly no, I haven't been able to search the library for them. Which is really a shame, since the library is right around the corner from my house! —Ceran ♦ (talk) 01:30, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  From my experience with public libraries, the reasearch material you can find is crap. I usually use the inter-library loan system, though it could be different in your town. ~the editorofthewiki ^{(talk/contribs/editor review)}~ 01:50, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• The part about the Nevado del Huila seems irrelevant, I was going to remove it myself, but I don't want to cause an uproar. ~the editorofthewiki ^{(talk/contribs/editor review)}~ 02:07, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Good, because I want to keep that. It provides an example of how much the 1985 eruption has become a part of volcanic theories and quotes. Also, if the new eruption that occurred today at NDH sadly becomes more destructive, it will be even more so important. Maybe after this one, I'll make Nevado del Huila an FA! —Ceran ♦ (talk) 17:05, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• I noticed that the mountain was first climbed in 1936. Some context (and a ref) would be nice. ~the editorofthewiki ^{(talk/contribs/editor review)}~ 18:15, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Um, there's no ref for that. I went to the library and could only find more and more of the same stuff in the 15-some reference books I leafed through. —Ceran ♦ ♦ (talk) 23:30, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • This website seems to verify that it was first climed in 1936. I think there might be a bit of info hidden in there. ~the editorofthewiki ^{(talk/contribs/editor review)}~ 23:38, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've added several more references, I think I'm getting closer. I'll add this one too. It could probably use a copy edit, too. —Ceran ^[speak] 01:39, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Hey, I'm working on it! Copyediting is not my strongest suit; I think you should ask someone better than me. ~the editorofthewiki ^{(talk/contribs/editor review)}~ 01:48, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. The two obvious things that are needed are: 1) more research; and 2) some serious thought about organization. I just made a first stab at reorganizing the material to give the article a little more coherence. Of course, as more material and sources are accessed, there will be further refinement. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 00:48, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  # 2 done, I think. —Ceran ♦ (talk) 22:06, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• For a successful FAC:
  • Info is needed on the original formation of the volcano along with ancient eruptive episodes. When & how did the volcano form and grow?
  • The geographic setting of the area is needed; how does this volcano relate to its setting?
    • Started, but I need some help finding sources to verify my information. I know a lot, but I won't add it without reliable sources, of which there are not many concerning Colombia tectonics. I'll try, though. —Ceran ♦ (talk) 01:28, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  Done. —Ceran ♦ (talk) 22:01, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Britannica is not a good source but I think it may still be allowed. If possible, replace.
  • "Staff" for an author is less useful than (for example) "USGS contributors" when a specific author is not known.
• I'll take a closer look once the above points are addressed. See also these mountain FAs to compare layout and coverage: Mount St. Helens, Mount Tambora, & Mount Pinatubo. Cheers. --mav (talk) 01:04, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to all three of you for responding so swiftly, and I will get to these ASAP. —Ceran ♦ (talk) 01:07, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch comments: As requested, here are some suggestions for improvement. I agree with all of the comments above, and think this still has organizational issues.

• I would look at the FAC and use that as a fairly detailed peer review and try to address all of the points raised there too.
• done. —Ceran ♦ ♦ (speak) 02:11, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• A model article is often useful for ideas and examples to follow. There are some mountain / volcano FAs that would be great models as Mav has noted, see also Mauna Loa.
• done. —Ceran ♦ ♦ (speak) 02:11, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• The section headers do not follow the MOS< specifically WP:HEAD - do not repeat the name of the article or a higher level header if at all possible, but Section 4 is "Eruptions", which has three subsections each with the word eruption (4.1 1595 eruption, 4.2 1845 eruption, and 4.3 1985 eruption - why not just 1595, 1845, and 1985 here?) and subsection 4.3 itself has a subsection 4.3.2 "Eruption" (hard to avoid this if it remains a subsection of 1985).
• done. —Ceran ^[speak] 21:33, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• The article seems a bit simplistic - Nevado del Ruiz is a broad, icy stratovolcano that covers an area of more than 200 kilometres (124 mi). Area should be given in square km or square miles (km and mi are distances). ((convert)) templates may help here.
• Working on it, but we might need a copyeditor uninvolved with the article. —Ceran ^[speak] 21:33, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• now being refined, so done.
• Refs are odd in places - what does "Case Study: LEDC." mean here: ... eruption in 1985 that was the world's deadliest.[8][9][4] Case Study: LEDC. Also put the refs in numerical order please.
• done. —Ceran ♦ ♦ (speak) 02:11, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• The language needs some serious work. two examples: Since Ruiz gained instant fame after its devastating eruption in 1985, scientists and government officials in Colombia are afraid the glaciers might melt completely.[11] What does the first part of the sentence (instant fame) have to do with the second part (fear of glaciers melting)? The use of "Since" makes it sound like there is a causal relationship (the fame will somehow melt the glaciers???).
• done. —Ceran ♦ ♦ (speak) 02:11, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Other places are just a little awkward, for example Out of 204 volcanoes in South America, Colombia itself counts for 37%.[5] might read better as Colombia accounts for 37% of the 204 volcanoes in South America.[5] or "flatly" is a word (you can flatly deny something) but I do not think it is used correctly in From there on, the hills stretch almost flatly to the edge of the Magdalena River north of the volcano, and the Cauca River to the west.[10]
• done. —Ceran ♦ ♦ (speak) 02:11, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog. Yours, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 16:52, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• See this search. You may not be able to read articles, but abstracts can also be very informative. Ruslik (talk) 11:57, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Well, I copy-edited parts of the article. I will continue tomorrow. Ruslik (talk) 13:55, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm just gonna pop in and out. I may not be around to answer questions.
• What does "numbering" mean "The ash ejected was extremely rich and numbering"
• Too many sentences start with "it". Actually, almost none should.

• done. —Ceran ♦ ♦ (speak) 23:48, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I saw a tense problem using "is" for a past event.. but gotta run now.
• Ling.Nut ^{(talk—WP:3IAR)} 09:59, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I find it useful to begin at the end and work up. The final sections mention an irrelevant lahar in Nevado del Huila. Seriously consider deleting this, although doing so would leave you with a one-paragraph section, which means reorganization is needed. Why are AFMs mentined in ths article but not in lahar? This article needs major work. Ling.Nut ^{(talk—WP:3IAR)} 00:11, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]