Talk:Misti
Misti has been listed as one of the Geography and places good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. Review: February 25, 2024. (Reviewed version). |
This level-5 vital article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
A fact from Misti appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 21 December 2023 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
|
|
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 180 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 3 sections are present. |
Did you know nomination[edit]
- The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was: promoted by Lightburst talk 20:18, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
- ... that Misti (pictured) is one of the most dangerous volcanoes in the world? Source: considerando además que al volcán Misti se le considera el más peligro del Perú y uno de los más peligrosos del mundo, por la gran cantidad de personas que habitan tan cerca al edificio volcánico
5x expanded by Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk). Self-nominated at 11:36, 22 November 2023 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/Misti; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.
- The full review is to follow (a quick check didn't find red flags), but I wonder if the hook could be revised. The hook is only cited to a single source, so for such a strong claim (which I don't doubt, this is more to avoid an ERRORS situation) I'd like to see a few more sources that also verify it. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 06:29, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
- Added a QPQ. Sources that verify the "one of the most dangerous" claim include [1][2][3]. Not supporting the exact claim, but this one shows that Arequipa is one of the three closest cities to an active volcano (and its population has since grown) Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:11, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
- Thanks, that should work. Just add them to the article because ideally such a strong claim like "one of the most dangerous in the world" would require multiple citations. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 01:50, 2 December 2023 (UTC)
- Added one of these sources for now. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:44, 2 December 2023 (UTC)
- Thanks, that should be better. Image is okay, article is okay (GA'd on time), hook is cited inline and interesting. I can't understand Spanish so AGF on the sources. QPQ has been done. No close paraphrasing found (Earwig only detected false positives due to the References coming up as hits for some reason). Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 03:14, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
- Added one of these sources for now. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:44, 2 December 2023 (UTC)
- Thanks, that should work. Just add them to the article because ideally such a strong claim like "one of the most dangerous in the world" would require multiple citations. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 01:50, 2 December 2023 (UTC)
Addition[edit]
Pages 135-136 of Queen of the Mountaineers: The Trailblazing Life of Fanny Bullock Workman apparently contain "Peck was confident the trek would be easy. After all, she had easily climbed El Misti in Peru, which was 19,098 feet high. That [(page break)] should have been proof enough that she could accomplish a great deal more." according to WP:RX. Dunno if there is anything worth adding. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:30, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
GA Review[edit]
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
- This review is transcluded from Talk:Misti/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: AryKun (talk · contribs) 19:53, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
- Hey, sorry for how long this is taking. This is a bit of a longer article, so I'll add comments section-by-section.
Extended content
|
---|
|
- What is a "house mountain"?
- My understanding is that the iconic mountain of a town, or at least the mountain most important to a town, is often called a "house mountain". Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:08, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
- Could you gloss this in the article? AryKun (talk) 08:24, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
- Linked, apparently the German concept applies across languages. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:53, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
- Could you gloss this in the article? AryKun (talk) 08:24, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
- My understanding is that the iconic mountain of a town, or at least the mountain most important to a town, is often called a "house mountain". Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:08, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
- "950 metres (3,120 ft)-835 metres (2,740 ft)" I can't figure out what this is. These should be in one convert template together; if the sources citing each length are different, just put both of them after it together.
- Nah, for such contradictions I put each claim with its source. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:05, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
- Well, then this shouldn't be presented as a range, but as "835 metres (2,740 ft) or 950 metres (3,120 ft)". In its current form, it's almost unreadable anyway.
- Nah, for such contradictions I put each claim with its source. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:05, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
- "90 cubic kilometres (22 cu mi)-40 cubic kilometres (9.6 cu mi)." Same issue as above.
- Did both. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:53, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
- "Discrepancies between elevation...different datums." How are you citing the reasons for differences between measurements made in 2001 and 2021 to sources written 80–100 years before that? These might be talking about discrepancies more generally, but they can't be used for the recent measurements, they're just too outdated.
- 'cause this is a problem even today. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:05, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
- But that source can't verify that, since it was made nowhere close to today. I'm not comfortable with such an old source being used to source issues with studies conducted over 80 years afterwards; aren't there any more recent sources that discuss the same issue?
- Not for Misti specifically, no. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:53, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
- Could you just remove the statement "Discrepancies between...different datums." then? I don't think sources written 100 years ago can be used to explain discrepancies in modern studies, and I find the linking of the two to be kind of OR. AryKun (talk) 19:39, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
- Commented out. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 14:51, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
- Could you just remove the statement "Discrepancies between...different datums." then? I don't think sources written 100 years ago can be used to explain discrepancies in modern studies, and I find the linking of the two to be kind of OR. AryKun (talk) 19:39, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
- 'cause this is a problem even today. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:05, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
- New towns linking to planned settles is an EGG.
- I don't see it. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:05, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
- I'd expect new towns to link to, well, new towns, not planned settlements. Planned settlements have nothing to do with being new, and most new towns aren't planned. Maybe just say "new planned settlements" instead if that's what they are and the sources say so? The other solution would be removing the link.
- Unlinked. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:53, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
- I'd expect new towns to link to, well, new towns, not planned settlements. Planned settlements have nothing to do with being new, and most new towns aren't planned. Maybe just say "new planned settlements" instead if that's what they are and the sources say so? The other solution would be removing the link.
- I don't see it. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:05, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
- Jo-Jo Eumerus I've collapsed all the comments I think have been addressed sufficiently, there's only a couple left that I've added further responses for. AryKun (talk) 12:53, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
- References are reliable and used correctly; will pass now. AryKun (talk) 09:28, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
Good Article review progress box
|
Korff's The Ascent of Misti[edit]
"Korff, S. A. "The Ascent of Misti." The New West Coast Leader 23.1208 (1935): 14-15." is a source with some unique information, but I am not sure if it can be put in Wikipedia's voice. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:39, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
French source[edit]
"Boutin, Pierre. "L'éruption du politique au pied d'un volcan inca, le Misti (1460-1470)." Rencontres (2007): 177-194." might have some useful information on the effect of the Misti eruption on Inka Yupanqui, but I can't read French very well. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:12, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
- Wikipedia good articles
- Geography and places good articles
- GA-Class vital articles
- Wikipedia level-5 vital articles
- Wikipedia vital articles in Geography
- GA-Class level-5 vital articles
- Wikipedia level-5 vital articles in Geography
- GA-Class vital articles in Geography
- GA-Class Mountain articles
- Low-importance Mountain articles
- All WikiProject Mountains pages
- GA-Class WikiProject Volcanoes articles
- High-importance WikiProject Volcanoes articles
- All WikiProject Volcanoes pages
- GA-Class Peru articles
- Mid-importance Peru articles
- Wikipedia Did you know articles