Tony1: done, thanks |
Malleus Fatuorum (talk | contribs) →Cerro Azul (Chile volcano): further comments |
||
Line 47: | Line 47: | ||
::::::: The templates were removed {{diff|Cerro Azul (Chile_volcano)|349885099|349846521|here}}, so that fixes that problem. [[User:Eubulides|Eubulides]] ([[User talk:Eubulides|talk]]) 05:45, 15 March 2010 (UTC) |
::::::: The templates were removed {{diff|Cerro Azul (Chile_volcano)|349885099|349846521|here}}, so that fixes that problem. [[User:Eubulides|Eubulides]] ([[User talk:Eubulides|talk]]) 05:45, 15 March 2010 (UTC) |
||
::::::::Thank you! [[User:Awickert|Awickert]] ([[User talk:Awickert|talk]]) 05:52, 15 March 2010 (UTC) |
::::::::Thank you! [[User:Awickert|Awickert]] ([[User talk:Awickert|talk]]) 05:52, 15 March 2010 (UTC) |
||
*'''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. --[[User:Malleus Fatuorum|Malleus]] [[User_talk:Malleus_Fatuorum|Fatuorum]] 13:45, 15 March 2010 (UTC) |
|||
* '''Support''' - I'm not an expert on South American volcanoes, but I took a look through the article and it looks quite extensive. [[User:Black Tusk|BT]] ([[User talk:Black Tusk|talk]]) 01:19, 14 March 2010 (UTC) |
* '''Support''' - I'm not an expert on South American volcanoes, but I took a look through the article and it looks quite extensive. [[User:Black Tusk|BT]] ([[User talk:Black Tusk|talk]]) 01:19, 14 March 2010 (UTC) |
Revision as of 13:45, 15 March 2010
Cerro Azul (Chile volcano)
Cerro Azul (Chile volcano) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Toolbox |
---|
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)
- 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)
- 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)
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)
- Gene Nygaard (talk) 01:33, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
- 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)
- No. That's done. Striking my objection. Gene Nygaard (talk) 21:37, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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)
- "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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- The current alt-text guidelines are at best misguided and help nobody. My oppose stands. --Malleus Fatuorum 01:28, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- The current alt-text guidelines are at best misguided and help nobody. My oppose stands. --Malleus Fatuorum 01:28, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
- 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)
- Is this any better? ceranthor 02:12, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
- 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)
- All inappropriate references to color. Ucucha 03:17, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
- All references to colour are inappropriate. --Malleus Fatuorum 03:53, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
- 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)
- All references to colour are inappropriate. --Malleus Fatuorum 03:53, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
- All inappropriate references to color. Ucucha 03:17, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
- "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)
- 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."[1] --Malleus Fatuorum 13:30, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
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)