Talk:Cerro Azul (Chile volcano)

	Cerro Azul (Chile volcano) is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
	This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on June 22, 2011.
Article milestones Date Process Result September 28, 2009 Good article nominee Listed April 8, 2010 Featured article candidate Promoted
Current status: Featured article

This article is rated FA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Chile Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Chile, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Chile on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChileWikipedia:WikiProject ChileTemplate:WikiProject ChileChile Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Volcanoes High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Volcanoes, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of volcanoes, volcanology, igneous petrology, and related subjects on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.VolcanoesWikipedia:WikiProject VolcanoesTemplate:WikiProject VolcanoesWikiProject Volcanoes High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Mountains High‑importance This article is part of WikiProject Mountains, a project to systematically present information on mountains. If you would like to participate, you can choose to edit the article attached to this page (see Contributing FAQ for more information), or visit the project page where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.MountainsWikipedia:WikiProject MountainsTemplate:WikiProject MountainsMountain High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Geology Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Geology, an attempt at creating a standardized, informative, comprehensive and easy-to-use geology resource. If you would like to participate, you can choose to edit this article, or visit the project page for more information.GeologyWikipedia:WikiProject GeologyTemplate:WikiProject GeologyGeology Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Photo added Mephiston999 (talk) 16:21, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This review is transcluded from Talk:Cerro Azul (Chile volcano)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Starting review. Pyrotec (talk) 17:17, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A fairly short article that appears to be well-referenced and fairly comprehensive in scope. I will now start the indepth review. Pyrotec (talk) 07:55, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Geography and geology -

• Appears to be compliant.

• Eruptive history -

• Appears to be compliant in respect of WP:verify.
• The Smithsonian ref in the bibliography mentions that the last activity was in 1967 (and its also in the Info box); but it is not mentioned in this section of the article.

Yes it is, see the eruptive history paragraph.

Sorry, I've read that paragraph at least three times and I did not see it until now. Pyrotec (talk) 18:36, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• WP:Lead -

• Possibly a bit on the short side, but for an article of this length it is reasonably. I would suggest a brief comment that it last erupted in 1967.

Done.

Pyrotec (talk) 14:45, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   B. MoS compliance:

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. References to sources:

   B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   B. Focused:

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

   B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

Congratulations on the quality of the article: I'm awarding GA-status. Pyrotec (talk) 18:39, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going through the article, and posting things here that I find but seem like too much for me to figure out alone. Awickert (talk) 17:07, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• There are two contradictory sources for the elevation of Quizapu. Awickert (talk) 17:07, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• The article uses both US and Commonwealth spellings and at least one US date format; which should we use? Awickert (talk) 17:07, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Missed these. US (silly me) Commonwealth, I think. The elevation should be verified by another source, then. ceranthor 19:31, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK - will do my best to change these; I'm a native US speaker so I might not find them all. Awickert (talk) 20:37, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

All the British spellings originally here were inserted through improper use of the Template:Convert, which defaults to British English and has caused thousands of articles to use British English which otherwise did not. The original and stable spellings were all American English.

They still are now, except for "metres" as a result of that insidious action of the convert template. It is still "sulfurous", it is still "traveled", it is still "vapor". Gene Nygaard (talk) 04:49, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note further that Awickert first raised the "mixture of spellings" issue a couple of days after this edit by User:Malleus Fatuorum changing from:

• "All are located relatively far up the summit, between 2000 and 3000 meters–excluding Quizapu, which is located 3,292 meters up the volcano."

to this:

• "All are relatively far up the summit, between 2,000 and 3,000 metres (6,600 and 9,800 ft) – excluding Quizapu, which is 3,292 metres (10,801 ft) up the volcano."

That wasn't the first use of template:convert to get the British spellings here, but it clearly illustrates one instance when an existing American English spelling was changed through that template. Gene Nygaard (talk) 04:56, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As per WP:RETAIN the article should keep the first spelling used, which appears to be American English. I did that. Eubulides (talk) 07:17, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Metre is the widely accepted international spelling not specifically British. Meter is the USA spelling. So if I were to create articles on mountains in the USA all using "metres", how long you think that would last regardless of WP:RETAIN? The convention we have adoped at WikiProject Mountains is to use metres for mountains outside the USA and meters for mountains within the USA. RedWolf (talk) 02:44, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to adress some issues that "minor" but relevant to keep that article as FA so it does not become demounted.

1. Caldera: Quizapu is in some senteces called crater and sometimes caldera. Tecnically caldera are distinct from craters by being formed by colapse and not by pilling up or blowaway of material.
2. Links: The article has a lot of red links like flux melting, Río Blanco Valley and Estero Barroso Valley. I dont see that these links will be "blue" in the near future. The South Volcanic Zone does not exist any longer and redirects to Andean Volcanic Belt. And a question is it South Volcanic Zone or Southern Volcanic Zone? (Im not sure)
3. Threats: The threats section is out of focus, Villarrica and Llaima are completely diferent volcanoes whose activity or setting does not resemble that of Cerro Azul. Their only relation to Cerro Azul is they are in the same country and arc but are despite of that quite different. Apart from this some information here is very loose and general specially about the assistance program. This assistance program sentences could be in any volcano article. Onformation of OVDAS and ONEMI activity (or neglect) are totally missing.

Chiton magnificus (talk) 13:40, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

1. in the Local setting section: surely the deep grooves are 'ruts' (or cuts) not 'struts'?

EdwardLane (talk) 08:51, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A number of sources say the largest known eruption was that of Huaynaputina in Peru in 1600. WolfmanSF (talk) 04:50, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It depends on definition of "recorded eruption". Ruslik_Zero 09:47, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The infobox image is going to be deleted from Commons soon, so we need a replacement. (It was my fault for not noticing that the photo was not taken by the a USGS employee.) A heads-up, Awickert (talk) 02:11, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

An image used in this article, File:Quizapu crater cerro azul.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests February 2012 What should I do? Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 22:02, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Cerro Azul (Chile volcano). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091008133920/http://botany.si.edu/projects/cpd/sa/sa44.htm to http://botany.si.edu/projects/cpd/sa/sa44.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:34, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]