Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Quelccaya Ice Cap/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 8 February 2021 [1].

Quelccaya Ice Cap[edit]

Nominator(s): Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:38, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the second-largest (after Coropuna) ice cap that currently exists in the tropics. It lies in a sparsely populated area of the Eastern Cordillera of the Peruvian Andes and like many ice bodies in the tropics it is retreating. It is comparatively well studied, since beginning in the 1970s both its former extent and its present-day ice have been studied. Ice cores taken at Quelccaya have been used to reconstruct past El Niño-Southern Oscillation states and to infer that the Little Ice Age was a global phenomenon. As a biological curiosity, some birds have been observed to nest on the ice cap. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:38, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Images[edit]

  • Images appear to be freely licensed (t · c) buidhe 03:11, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I participated considerably on article talk, so will wait for others to review. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:36, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jens[edit]

  • Interesting topic, but I did often stumble over various little issues; the first bit below.
  • is surrounded by tall ice cliffs – aren't the ice cliffs part of it/form the border?
    Yes. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 21:47, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Cordillera Vilcanota mountain range is ten kilometres (6.2 mi) northwest of Quelccaya, and is sometimes considered to be part of it – part of what?
    Of the Vilcanota; replaced it. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 21:47, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Amazon rainforest-only 40 kilometres (25 mi) away- – we need either en-dashes (–) with spaces before and behind, or the longer em-dashes (—) without space.
  • Who did that after I went through? Hopefully you will find no more of that. Now fixed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:26, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • It has also been compared to a plateau glacier – not sure if this should be hidden in a footnote. I think it would be helpful to provide a definition of "ice cap" (and maybe what the difference is to a plateau glacier).
    AFAIK this is a bit of a murky distinction, it's footnoted because "plateau glacier" is a much less commonly used term. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 21:47, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Atypical for glaciers, the ice lies on a flat surface rather than on a mountain peak. – I thought it was an ice cap and not a glacier? Again, a bit of background on terminology certainly would help (point above).
    Ice caps are a form of glacier. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 21:47, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Jens Lallensack:There is some discussion here but I don't think we can apply that to Quelccaya. Ir refers to this other source which implies that an ice cap is a form of glacier. I am not sure how to integrate this. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:41, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • ice domes – can this be linked or explained?
    It's a dome-formed mass of ice. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 21:47, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Added an explanation. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:41, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Close to the summit the ice is 100–150 metres (330–490 ft) thick, – summit of what, of one of the domes?
    Of the entire ice cap. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 21:47, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Clarified this point. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:41, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • and a total volume of over 1 cubic kilometre (0.24 cu mi). – Suggest to make this a separate sentence as otherwise it would refers the summit.
    Rewrote this. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 21:47, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Spectacular ice cliffs reaching heights of 50 metres (160 ft) form most of the margin of Quelccaya. – "ice cliffs" link to icefall. Is this correct? They seem to be different things.
    Unlinked. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 21:47, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • On the southern and western sides, parts of the ice cap end at steep cliffs like those in polar regions. – What is the difference to the "spectacular cliffs" that were mentioned earlier?
    That the source makes a comparison only of these sides. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 21:47, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • It would be nice to know when the Quelccaya National Sanctuary was established (i.e., since when was the ice field formally protected)? --Jens Lallensack (talk) 19:19, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Yannow, according to Google the source is the only place where the existence of such a thing is discussed. Perhaps it's a wrong source. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 21:47, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Nevermind, found that there is one since 2020; added that in instead, with date. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:41, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • as indicated by the preservation of plants below it – I was a bit confused by this. Does it mean "plant remains"? Or even "whole plants"? Surely not living ones.
    "Subfossil", which indeed translates to remains; so changed. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:44, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • (such as during the early Holocene) and cold-based and thus not very erosive – I would place a comma behind "Holocene)", otherwise it is not clear what belongs to what; I had to read it several times before being able to understand.
  • The plateau is surrounded by an escarpment and a number of valleys emanate from the plateau. – Not ideal to have "plateau" twice.
    True, but I worry that people will assume that "it" refers to the escarpment. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:44, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • these valleys include the Qori Kalis valley northwest of the ice cap, Challpa Cocha valley south of Qori Kalis, Huancané valley south of Challpa Cocha valley and "South Fork" valley south of Huancané valley. – its a bit tedious to read; do we have to repeat each valley twice? Why not simply write something like "The valleys are, from north to south, " and then list them.
  • The Huancané valley is 0.5 kilometres (0.31 mi) wide and flat and has the "South Fork" valley as a tributary. The Huancané valley runs southwestwards away from Quelccaya and is occupied by the Huancané River – Why is this valley described in greater detail but not the others? This indicates it must be much more important, but I think the reader needs to know why it is more important.
    Because there are more sources to it; if my understanding is correct Mercer 1974 & 1977 did their research there and it is frequently used as an example of Holocene glacial history in the Andes. I'd say so in the text if there was a source for it. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:44, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
From my understanding, in this case we need to stick with the least common denominator rather than providing excessive detail to some aspects just because they is some en passant info available in some source. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 17:46, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I have to disagree, though. We are describing an ice cap, yes, but also some of the surroundings especially since many references to the ice cap are about the terrain previously covered by it. And I think the article makes it clear that it's not an exhaustive list. Also, since we don't have any information on the valleys east of Quelccaya the "lowest common denominator" would be to remove any discussion of the valleys, but I don't think that works per WP:WIAFA 1b. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 13:23, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Clay and peat are also found incorporated in moraines, where peat has been exposed by erosion during floods. – I can't follow. How did the peat become incorporated?
    Glaciers eroded it from the ground and it ended up in moraines. Mercer 1977 has on p.603 used the term "bulldozing" to explain the process; would that be clearer? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:44, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, but the part "where peat has been exposed by erosion during floods" is still not clear to me. Floods would quickly erode exposed peat, wouldn't they? Does this part of the sentence just want to inform how the peat in the moraines was discovered? What does it add? Maybe even remove to avoid confusion. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 17:46, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Attempted a rewrite to make it clearer. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 13:23, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Annual precipitation at Quelccaya and the neighbouring Cordillera Vilcanota is about 0.8–1.0 metre per year – "annual" and "per year" is redundant.
  • also generated orographic precipitation, a type of precipitation influenced by orography. – I really appreciate explanations of technical terms, but this one here in the second part of the sentence is not useful. I think it could be more specific, and it should explain "orography" to possibly be of help.
    Removed it, I don't think explaining "orography" here is trivial and no source comes to mind. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:44, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
What about "caused by upward movement of air in front of mountains" as explanation? I don't think that a simple explanation of terms for the general reader needs a source. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 17:46, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Added a variant thereof, with source. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 13:23, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Annually, about 1,150 millimetres (45 in) of snow water equivalent accumulate on Quelccaya, – But the annual precipitation was already mentioned? Seems redundant, although the info is slightly different.
    Tough one, precipitation is basically weather while SWE is more glaciology and both values are not necessarily equivalent (e.g wind driven snow transport). Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:44, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think this issue needs to be solved in some way (merged? remove one of them?), otherwise the article lacks integrity. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 17:46, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Removed one value, with an explanation in the edit summary. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 13:23, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • This moisture originates from the Atlantic Ocean – previously it was stated it originates from the Amazon.
  • there was actually a net decrease in snow height on Quelccaya. – Not sure what "actually" adds here, can it be removed? --Jens Lallensack (talk) 20:45, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The vegetation in the region is known as puna, which is a kind of grassland – I think it is not just one type of grassland, but a set of different ecosystems. Maybe just call it "Puna grassland" to avoid the issue.
  • and consists of herb – "herbs"?
  • which is a kind of grassland; – suggest to have a full stop here.
    I think the rewrite to drop the half-sentence is better. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:44, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The only human use of the area is livestock grazing but agriculture has also been reported. – If so, then "only" is not entirely correct. Maybe some other word, "main" or "mostly"?
  • There are over fifty plant species. – Still speaking about the "region west of Quelccaya"? How large is this region, how is it defined?
    The source isn't terribly clear on this point but it does indicate it must be very close to the present/recent past position of the ice. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:44, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, "terrain around the ice cap" is clear enough I think. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 17:46, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tussock grasses have been expanding in the area. – As invasive species? If so, it is important to mention. Several species of Tussock grasses or just one?
    Not as far as I can tell, the source does not specify the species. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:44, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The source says that there is a shift in vegetation (from Distichia to tussock grass) because of the retreat of ice. Just saying "Tussock grasses have been expanding in the area" is misleading. Furthermore, the source cites this information to another paper: Seimon et al. 2017. Why is this one not incorporated? --Jens Lallensack (talk) 17:46, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That source applies to Laguna Sibinacocha, this one is the only one that applies the findings to Quelccaya. I've done a minor rewrite for now but perhaps a wholesale removal of that sentence is better. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 13:23, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Other plants include Festuca orthophylla, jarava ichu – Please state what type of plants these are.
  • and nettles – What do you mean with "nettles"? They are not a natural taxon.
  • Why do you specifically mention Festuca orthophylla and jarava ichu but not other plants? Are they especially characteristic, or important in some other aspect? If so, the reader should know.
I think the MINCETUR mentions them as characteristic for the area, while the other 47+ species are more of specialist interest. I've put some explanation of type. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 13:36, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think this is a reason to be inconsistent in the article. We always have to interpret sources. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 17:46, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I've put "amphibians" instead. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 13:23, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sediment cores in lakes and peat, soil formation and cosmogenic isotope dating have been used to infer past states of the ice cap, – Soil formation is a process; how can a process be "used"? Do you just mean "soils", or "paleosoils"? --Jens Lallensack (talk) 18:50, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Done to here, unless noted otherwise above. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:44, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Femkemilene[edit]

  • the Quelccaya record has been used to infer that the Little Ice Age was a global event. The Little Ice Age is not considered a global event anymore [2]. Only the last bit shows globally coherent cooling. Very old source (1986)
    Changed the tense to make it more clear that it was a past idea. Incidentally, does Neukom et al. 2019 really say that the LIA wasn't a global event? To me it sounds like it's saying that it was not synchronous all around the world (e.g Fig 3e) which is not exactly the same thing. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:41, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
What would 'global event' mean then if we're not talking about something that happened globally, but rather normal internal variability? Easily to get lost in semantics here though. Femke Nijsse (talk) 11:00, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that a change in tense is sufficient to indicate this is an outdated idea. Femke Nijsse (talk) 11:11, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Is there a source I can use to say "before the idea of a globe-spanning Little Ice Age was discredited"? Neukom 2019 is advancing a hypothesis, but it does not say whether their conclusions have been accepted by the scientific community. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 11:59, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm also very sceptical of these old sources denoting cyclicity (f.i. that 14-year cycle). Statistics showing cyclicity were not always properly done in the older day of climate science. If you can't find any modern sources, I'd delete it.
    Moved them to talk in the interim, as I can't find any more recent sources. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:41, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The terminology business-as-usual is considered obsolete; some mitigation policy has been irreversibly implemented (solar prices are not going up again). RCP8.5 is now considered unlikely to happen, and was even at the moment of design when it was a worst case 'business-as-usual, with RCP6.0 the more likely 'business-as-usual'. I now describe RCP8.5 as a very high emission scenario on Wikipedia.
    I've put "RCp8.5" in. Is there a source I can use to explain that distinction? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:41, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I like this Carbon Brief article. Femke Nijsse (talk) 11:00, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Femkemilene: Added a note with that source. Feel free to improve the text, I don't like the formulation very much. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 11:29, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • according to Rabatel et al. 2018 once the equilibrium line altitude has reached the top of the ice cap, the entire cap will become a zone of net ice loss. remove according to Rabatel et al. 2018: this is true per the definition of an equilibrium line. Femke Nijsse (talk) 23:08, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    That was wording I added in because I wasn't certain that Rabatel et al. 2018's conclusions were universally agreed upon. I've seen no dissent (except for those due to changing emission scenarios) so it's gone. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:41, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article is full of mid-sentence citations, which impede readability. A few examples (non-exhaustive, please check through-out):
    The ice forms a relatively thin and flat structure with two, three or four ice domes, the highest of which reaches 5,645 metres (18,520 ft) elevation. (5 mid-sentence citations). Can you figure out which source is correct? Maybe send an e-mail to the researcher. If not, I'd just go with the most recent, as the ice cap may have lost domes due to melting.
    I don't think there is enough information to decide, and since it's mainly the edges of the ice cap that are retreating rather than the full outline changing, I think the discrepancy is more because they are using different definitions of "dome" than because their number has changed. Also, only Mercer appears to base their conclusions on geophysical research, while the others are less clear on how they get their conclusions. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 11:59, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The terrain features landforms such as drift deposits, lakes, moraines and moraine-dammed lakes, outwash fans, peat bogs, rocks bearing glacial striations, streams and wetlands. Do none of the sources include multiple landforms?
    They all do, but none of them covers all landforms. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 11:59, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Dust layers deposited during the dry season allow the determination of yearly layers, which characteristically thin downward. The later detail seems unnecessary (thin downward). Does the middle source not cover the entire sentence?
    Two birds, the white-winged diuca finch and the white-fronted ground tyrant are known to nest on the Quelccaya ice cap, are these two middle cites needed?
  • Semi-colons seem to be overused, leading to very long sentences.
    I've removed some, but in many instances splitting the sentences makes them flow worse. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 20:58, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is however some uncertainty owing to, for example, changes in precipitation, such as a potential future decrease thereof. Can be reworded to have only one example (for example and such as merged), which would also eliminate a mid-sentence cite.

Femke Nijsse (talk) 11:11, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Within-sentence citations; keep or remove?[edit]
  • I've dealt with some of the problems and will deal with the semi-colon thing in due course (a bit pressed for time at the moment), but I need some feedback on the readability problem. Removing the mid-sentence citations breaks the text-source integrity and I am not sure if that is a price worth paying for increased readability. Especially since, if someone then contests the rearrangement, it'd be quite difficult to revert. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 11:59, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I would agree that the mid-sentence citations distract quite a bit, especially because this is not what other articles do, and it therefore simply feels unfamiliar. The reader tends to stop at every such citation. I see that there might be some benefit, but I think it is minimal in most cases, especially when the cited information is trivial, for example in "The ice forms a relatively thin[36] and flat structure[28]". It might make sense to use in-sentence citations when sources contradict each other though. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 12:38, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Let's see how far you can get without having to deal with text-source integrity. There are plenty of examples of very uncontroversial statements that nobody outside the FAC will check. Those not after a comma are especially distracting. Femke Nijsse (talk) 14:28, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Jo-Jo, while I have come to appreciate your scrupulous dedication to source-to-text integrity, and desire to keep citations strictly attached to the piece of text being cited, I too agree that many citations could be better grouped after punctuation to aid readability. Doing this might also make it easier to disentangle some long sentences (where I am probably responsible for some of the semi-colon excess, as I try to break up very long sentences without being sure how to best do that without juggling the citations). In terms of meeting verifiability, often when you add citations to one piece of data, you are citing a very specific number, which (unlike paraphrased text) would not be hard to find in sources via a ctrl-f search, so I don't think removing them to a spot where there is punctuation would necessarily impede verifiability. I also recommend in some cases that the concept you are explaining is more significant than the precise number cited, and that in some cases, the numbers themselves can be moved to the end of a sentence by re-casting the sentence. Then the casual reader's eye is triggered to skim/skip the precise detail, rather than having to wade through a lot of numbers. Hope this helps; this problem arises because of your scrupulous attention to integrity. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:34, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I am convinced now. I've done some of the shuffling but I figure folks may want more. Sometimes I wonder if there is a reference style that lacks these [ and ] tags which double the size of each reference in the written form. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 20:58, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Subsectioned this in case more people have issues or someone wants the subcites back. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:48, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Funk[edit]

  • I'll review here once I've finished some other reviews I've begun, but in the meantime, I see some duplinks, which can be highlighted with the usual script.[3] FunkMonk (talk) 19:58, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, one duplicate link (there is only one mention of "dendritic") and many references used more than once. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:48, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I see two duplinks now, Holocene and Rwenzori Mountains, have you tried the script? FunkMonk (talk) 19:00, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
For some reason the script I use didn't show these; they are gone now. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 13:23, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The older script has some deficiencies, so I recommend this one. FunkMonk (talk) 14:51, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Did that, now onto the comments... Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 11:14, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and Quelccaya sometimes considered to be part of it" Missing "is"?
  • "Politically, Quelccaya is part of the Cuzco Department" Wouldn't "administratively" be a more fitting word?
  • "Together with Coropuna[14] volcano a" The Coropuna volcano? And that's an odd place to put a citation?
  • "also known as Quenamari and is sometimes also spelled Quelcaya," What do these names mean?
    Couldn't find a source for this, the source used for Ubinas does only mention "Quenamari" without an etymology. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 11:14, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and the local population considers Quelccaya an important apu, a holy spirit." Add "native" before population?
    The source only says "local" and I am not certain enough about how belief in these holy spirits is partitioned between demographics. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 11:14, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "A 1974 map shows a homestead on the Huancané River southwest from Quelccaya, about 12 kilometres (7.5 mi) from the ice margin.[30][31]" I'm not sure what the point of this information is. Is that homestead not there anymore? Wouldn't we know? Makes it seem like some mythological ruin.
    I suppose it's a bit of a geographical reference. The source sounds like the author was there, so I wouldn't assume misinterpretation. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 11:14, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The image under Ice cap is so large that it doesn't fit my very wide screen. Any reason for that size?
    It's a pretty wide shot, scrunching it together to a thumb form would make it unreadable. I've reduced it to 900px. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 11:14, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@FunkMonk:Did all of this except as noted. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 11:14, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Many explanations of terms are relegated to footnote, I wonder why they aren't kept in the main text?
    Mostly because in many cases they jolt the flow of the sentence if they were part of it. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 13:55, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
But isn't that why such are just put in parenthesis usually? Other notes like "Reaching the bedrock" seem so short that they would be easy to incorporate and fit well into the flow? FunkMonk (talk) 05:16, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I am very reticent about having a lot of parentheses, it doesn't look like good style to me. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:35, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It is certainly not an easy issue, there is some current discussion of it here:[4] FunkMonk (talk) 12:46, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Link names of animals and other subjects in image captions.
    Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 13:55, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • More images that could be shown? There are long stretches without illustrations, which could be nice to look at.
    There aren't that many images of the ice cap, sadly. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 13:55, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • " 60 species of birds,[28]mammals" Needs space after citation.
    Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 13:55, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "while drought periods have been linked to cultural changes in the Moche culture and the collapse of Tiwanaku" Changes like what?
    The change in question is the transition of the Moche IV culture to the Moche V and a movement north and away from the coasts. Would that work as in-article text? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 13:55, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The American paleoclimatologist" Why does American need to be linked?
    Because I am not certain that we can assume that people reading an article about a South American glacier know the "America"="USA" convention. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 13:55, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "covered larger areas,[3] covering the area" A bit clunky with the "area" repetition, any way it could be rephrased?
    Did a rewording. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:35, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "may not have occurred at the same time as Lake Tauca existed" Which was when?
  • "until either 7,000 years ago or between at least 7,000 years ago and about 5,000 years ago, plants grew at its margins,[192][193][174] including cushion mire vegetation." How do we know this?
    Done to here, unless specified otherwise. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:35, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • " which bulldozed peat deposits" Seems an odd term, is this what the source says?
    Yes. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 13:47, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and drowned some alpaca" Wild ones?
    Source doesn't specify. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 13:47, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Alpine life is quickly advancing into the terrain left by ice,[131] and the retreat has exposed plants that had been overrun during a glacier expansion that occurred 5,000 years ago.[197]" These plants must be dead, no? Hard to figure out since the context is "advancing life".
    Yes, changed to "plant remains". Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 13:47, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Avalanches and floods from glaciers have killed over 35,000 people" During what interval?
    To my annoyance, the source does not specify (again). Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 13:47, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The population in the region is for the most part rural with low socioeconomic status" How large is the population?
    We only know for Cusco's population, which is not strictly what this statement is about. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 13:47, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The Peruvian Quelccaya (also known as Quenamari) Ice Cap" Wouldn't something like "The Quelccaya Ice Cap (also known as Quenamari) of Peru" flow better as the first sentence? Now the name is disrupted by both being preceded by another word and having a parenthesis in the middle of it.
  • Perhaps you could even save mentioning the country at the following sentence instead "Located in the Cordillera Oriental section of the Andes mountains".
    Yes; done both. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 13:47, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - looks good to me, I hope more images show up! FunkMonk (talk) 17:12, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hog Farm[edit]

Will likely claim for WikiCup points. I hope to get to this soon. Hog Farm Bacon 16:26, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • "The existence of two smaller ice caps south of Quelccaya was reported in 1968" - Do we know how close, or if they're still there? I see it's cited to a 1968 source, so is there anything more recent referring to these?
    Doesn't seem like, but the problem is that "Jurocucho" is apparently an uncommon Latinization of a placename and consequently it's hard to search for it. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:50, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do we know the origin of the names Ouelccaya and Quenamari? What language or culture they originate from, and what they might mean?
    Probably Aymara or Quechua like most toponyms there, but I didn't find a source discussing the etymology. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:50, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and the ice has a total volume of over 1 cubic kilometre (0.24 cu mi)." - Given that the feature is actively shrinking, should this have an as of statement to indicate when this figure is from?
    Yes, added a date. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:50, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is there a more recent size figure than 2009?
    Doesn't seem like it. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:50, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Link directly to Katabatic wind, not just to Katabatic, as katabatic redirects to an article that is mostly about going to the underworld, and not very much about the winds.
    Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:50, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The main human use of the area is livestock grazing but agriculture has also been reported" - Consider rephrasing, because livestock grazing can be considered to be an agricultural practice if you're raising livestock, while the phrasing suggests they are two completely different things
    Did a rephrasing. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:50, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Distichia muscoides is the dominant plant in the bofedales" - What type of plant is D. muscoides? The redlink is meaningless to most readers.
    Added one. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:50, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I guess I may be wrong since I'm mainly only familiar with American English, but isn't deer the preferred plural rather than deers?
    Seems like it might be, so done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:50, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • So does the weather station not measure temperature, since earlier you said that the temperature readings were only inferred?
    Actually, it does record temperatures but the source only reports isotope and snow height data. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:50, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "traces of the Suess cycle, a solar cycle," - If "a solar cycle" is being used to gloss what the Suess cycle is, then it'll be wise to find a different way to phrase that, as the use of the serial commas in the list can make it look like those are two different entries. If they really are two different entries, then ignore this comment.
    Rephrased it. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:50, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • " tropical glaciers may primarily record secular climate change" - What is secular climate change? Climate change that isn't religious?
    No, it means that they record longer-term climate variability. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:50, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    This term will need glossed or linked, as it is likely to be confusing to most readers. Hog Farm Bacon 17:22, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Linked. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 19:57, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Stopping before I get to the Natural history section, I hope to pick back up tomorrow. Hog Farm Bacon 05:43, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • "These lakes could be sources of future glacial lake outburst floods, although the sparse population of the area mitigates against this hazard;" - Surely you mean that the sparse population reduces the damage risk, not the flood risk itself? The current phrasing can be read to mean that the sparse population itself makes a flood more likely, so I'd recommend rephrasing.
    Yes, but it's hard to formulate it in words. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 19:57, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    How about something along the lines of These lakes could be sources of future glacial lake outburst floods, although the sparse population of the area means that potential damages caused by these floods would be lessened? It's not perfect, but does it sound better to you? Hog Farm Bacon 22:00, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    That's better; I've put it in. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:39, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Other than that, looks okay. Hog Farm Bacon 18:28, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support against criteria 1a, 1d, 1e, 2a, 2b, 2c, and 4; my review did not check the article against the remaining criteria, as I am not an image expert and do not know enough about this subject to judge comprehensiveness. Hog Farm Talk 00:21, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Source review[edit]

Spotchecks not done

  • "between 6,000 and 5,000 years ago, a Neoglacial expansion began" - text says only 5,000 (also doesn't capitalized neoglacial)
    Fixed. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:43, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Content change is fine; is there a reason to maintain the capitalization difference? Nikkimaria (talk) 01:54, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    No; fixed it. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:12, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Be consistent in whether you include locations for books
    Standardized to "none". Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:43, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • FN7 is missing language
    Added "en"; despite the title it's in English. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:43, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • FN23: is there a better source for this information?
    Nope. This kind of general information can be found on dedicated websites or monographies (as well as in blogs, travel websites etc. but they don't meet the "high quality RS" criteria), but it's too generic for academic publications usually. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:43, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    What about media? For example this would be considered reliable and supports the apu claim. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:54, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    In general, I don't think that media are better sources than government websites for this kind of information. Oversimplification, undue focus on minor details and reliance on unreliable information are common problems. I've added that one for that claim. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:12, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • FN82: where is that title coming from? Also why is this listed as via ResearchGate? Neither link goes to that site
    No idea. I've rewritten the citation; it must have been mangled at some point, perhaps by a bot. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:43, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • FN214: given title is a chapter title not a work title
    Corrected. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:43, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Check alphabetization of Sources
    Done I think. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:43, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • What is the EARSeL Workshop?
    It's this group; I've linked it. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:43, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Be consistent on when you include retrieval date
    Standardized so that it applies to cite web and cite conference but not cite book and cite journal. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:43, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • La Frenniere appears to be a book series, not a journal
    Changed. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:43, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Habitable Planet EL is dead and the NYT EL needs reformatting. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:35, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Decided to remove these, I don't think they add much. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:43, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Nikkimaria, how is this looking? Gog the Mild (talk) 13:01, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Not thrilled with the tourism source but otherwise good to go. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:10, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nikkimaria, are you referring to "Nevado De Quelccaya". Recursos turísticos (in Spanish). Ministerio de Comercio Exterior y Turismo, from the Peruvian government Ministry of Foreign Trade and Tourism? (Hard to tell as footnote numbers have changed, but it is now at footnote # 22). It is used four times:
  1. and the local population considers Quelccaya an important apu, a holy spirit.[22][23] (double cited and not problematic)
  2. Other plants include Festuca orthophylla (a grass), Jarava ichu (Peruvian feathergrass) and nettles.[22] (seems fine)
  3. Among animals are 60 species of birds,[28] mammals in the surrounding region such as Andean foxes, Andean mountain cats, deer, vicuñas and vizcachas,[22][134] (double cited and seems fine)
  4. Atypical for glaciers, the ice lies on a flat surface rather than on a mountain peak.[22]
The first three seem like the kinds of statements that could be sourced to a government ministry, but Jo-Jo Eumerus the fourth is making a statement about the typical characteristics of glaciers, which seems outside of the expertise of a tourism ministry. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:44, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, that's the one. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:45, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Nikkimaria and SandyGeorgia:That seems like a reasonable concern and I note that it's also a little out of place (the terrain that Quelccaya rests on is discussed in the following section) and duplicated; I've removed it. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:10, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:31, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Gerald Waldo Luis[edit]

Title attracted me! Mostly because I miss brainfreezing on shaved ice.

Resolved comments from GeraldWL 12:36, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
* (Lead) "The Quelccaya (also known as Quenamari) Ice Cap". Awkward placement of the bracket, which kinda cuts the sentence. Suggest "The Quelccaya Ice Cap (also known as the Quenamari Ice Cap)".
  • Yeah, this one's been bothering me for a while. I've changed it. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:11, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Lead) "...to a size smaller than today"-- errr. Maybe change "today" with "present day"? Feel free to ignore, but I'm not really a fan of that wording.
    I dunno if there is a preference, but done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:11, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Citations) A lot of citation overkill in this article. Overkill occurs when more than two or three (depending on appropriateness) citations are packed to one. Are the current overkills appropriate? If so, I suggest bundling them, if able.
    Yeah, sometimes a single sentence needs more than one reference, when writing strictly one sentence-one reference results in stilted text. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:11, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Geography) "...in the Cordillera Oriental or eastern Andes." Which one then?
    Both; I've put a slash in. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:11, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Human geography) "The ice cap, which is also known as Quenamari and is sometimes also spelled Quelcaya"-- no need for "and is sometimes also spelled Quelcaya", as the term 'Quelcaya' has been used several times at the above paragraphs and is not new.
    Eh? Quelccaya is used in preceding paragraphs. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:11, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Then it would be great to follow it with a bracket "(with one c)". GeraldWL 16:10, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I've rearranged it a bit. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 11:05, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Ice cap) "It has decreased over time"-- suggest adding comma following this.
    Added. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:11, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Ice cap) "Spectacular ice cliffs reaching heights of 50 metres"-- spectacular? Is this subjective term?
    The source explicitly uses it. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 11:05, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think it needs to be used. It's a subjective term, and we are not an indiscriminate collection of source statements. GeraldWL 11:32, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    OK, removed it. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 12:13, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Physical structures) "Reconnaissance in 1974–1977 found glacier caves in the Quelccaya ice cap"-- should "ice cap" be capitalized per the title?
    Eh, I think not. Honestly, I wouldn't mind a move of the title but I am not an expert in titling conventions. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 11:05, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Physical-chemical traits) "The ice cap contains temperate ice." Probably a short sentence to have 3 references....
    It's a bit of a contested statements (some sources use different terms) so I prefer to spell out all citations per WP:BALANCE. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 11:05, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Citations) Okay now I can't handle the citation overkill. Suggest bundling them as I pointed above.
  • (Geomorphology) "The plateau is surrounded by an escarpment and a number of valleys emanate from the plateau." Repetitive use of plateau here. Suggest changing "the plateau" to "it".
    That would be ambiguous as it might refer to "escarpment" rather than "plateau". Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 11:05, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Geomorphology) "...Huancané valley, and "South Fork" valley." First, I think you should put footnote d next to "Huancané valley" as it talks about that specific valley. Second, why is South Fork in quotations?
    Regarding the first, because the footnote is about South Fork. The quote marks are because it's an informal name applied by researchers, not an official place name. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 11:05, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Geomorphology) I think to link clay is overlink. I guess. Similar to flood.
    Delinked. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 11:05, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Climate) Linking rainfall is probably overlink.
    Not necessarily; here it's important that it's rain rather than other kinds of precipitation. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 11:05, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

GeraldWL 16:10, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]


  • Support. Frankly I'm still irritated by the overkill, but it's a nice article nonetheless. You may consider bundling some bundle-able sfns though. GeraldWL 12:36, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Coord note[edit]

@Jens Lallensack, Femkemilene, Gerald Waldo Luis, and SandyGeorgia:, did you have anything to add? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:49, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I would go and support this if the citation bundling is done. Too much citations make the article seem cluttered and untidy. After that is done I'll strike my comments and support this article. GeraldWL 06:17, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Gerald Waldo Luis:Gonna be difficult to do that without a change in referencing style, I'm afraid - I can't tell from the help pages how sfn citations could be bunded. I've done some merging of these references which are different page numbers of the same source, though. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:32, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sfn-style citations can be bundled using {{sfnm}}. However, this is not a requirement, and in my view not a matter warranting opposition to promotion. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:44, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ian Rose I will read through later today. Jo-Jo, could you please put citations in ascending order? Sample: ... in a large change in the ice.[1][84][10][54][85] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:57, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 20:29, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Jo-Jo Eumerus, This will of course take time, but just take your time. There is no deadline anyway. I'll try help you when I have the time, although it will be hard for me as I'm not a big fan of the source editor. GeraldWL 15:07, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Imma wait to see if anyone else wants to apply sfnm. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 20:29, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
There is one instance of five citations for a statement, and three instances of four citations for a statement. This is not screaming WP:CITATION OVERKILL as, for example, seen in this unfortunate FA: Amphetamine#Reference notes. I would not implement bundling for four instances overall in the article, but Jo-Jo, is it possible that all of those citations are not necessary to back those statements? You might doublecheck if any can be dropped. Also, please double check that refs are in ascending order after I fixed a few. The way I scroll through to check for these is to ctrl-f on ][ and scroll to each one. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:24, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Cut back on one of these multi-referenced statements. The ordering doesn't seem to have suffered. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 11:05, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
OK, checking those instances that are left:
  1. As reported in 1979, 1981 and 2013, there is little energy available at the top of the Quelccaya ice cap as outgoing and incoming radiation are essentially balanced.[44][79][80][81] ... In this case, the four citations clearly refer back to the years referenced in the text, so makes sense, no need for bundling.
  2. Maximum extent occurred either about 20,000 years ago or between 28,000 and 14,000 years ago. The maximum extent occurred during the Weichselian/Wisconsin glaciation and within marine isotope stage 2.[178][179][181][182] ... In this case, moving all the citations to the end of the sentence may have been less than helpful. Something refers to 20,000 years ago, while something else refers to 28,000 to 14,000 years ago. Here, it might make sense to spell it all out in one footnote, which source says what.
  3. Huancane I moraines are less than 1,000 years old and reflect the Little Ice Age extent of the Quelccaya ice cap which at Quelccaya occurred between about 1490 and 1880 and partially also expansions that occurred 1,000, 600, 400 and 200 years ago.[84][90][215][216] ... same for this one ... different sources say different years, and it is not clear which says what, so one note explaining each may be more useful.
Other than those two instances (Nos. 2 and 3), I don't see citation overkill or a need for bundling. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:46, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Added a note to the instance 2, but I think that moving some of the references back may ease the overkill issue. I've hacked around #3 to split the sentence. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:14, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:23, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Leaning support, review on talk at Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates/Quelccaya Ice Cap/archive1#SandyGeorgia. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:42, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Support, my focus pre-FAC was on MOS issues and copyediting. Now that others have been through and a source check has been done, I focused more on jargon. I am satisfied that context is given such that a layperson can decipher what the specialty terms relate to and click on the wikilinks as needed. Changes. There is one jargon term (escarpment) that is difficult to resolve, discussed at Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates/Quelccaya Ice Cap/archive1#Remaining, which I trust will be resolved satisfactorily. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:06, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Resolved, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:13, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I've done a spot check on the sources used for climate information. Prose has improved significantly. Still a preference for fewer citations, but it's not a burden for readability any more. Femke Nijsse (talk) 17:02, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reviewing currently I actually started this article but when I left off it was not much more than a Stub, maybe Start class. Jo-Jo has done wonders here so I will reread this vast improvement and comment in next day or two.--MONGO (talk) 17:43, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support promotion to Featured Article Having read through the article and found no issues as well as seen that issues mentioned here have been addressed, can see no reason to not support.--MONGO (talk) 17:50, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by CMD[edit]

Thank you for this detailed article on an interesting topic.

    • "There are several camps at Quelccaya". This stood out to me, I wasn't sure if it meant just common campsites or a more permanently staffed base camp type situation.
      • The former, I think - sources don't mention the existence of the latter but they do mention "camps". Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:23, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • If there is an adjective sources use, something like established or regular or similar, that would be useful. However if there's not then there's not. CMD (talk) 11:57, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • "By tropical standards, Quelccaya is a low-elevation ice cap that rises above the surrounding terrain". I assume that this means that the low elevation and the exposure to the elements are unusual in the tropics. However, the sentence structure isn't that clear. The "by tropical standards" matches the "low" adjective, but the "rises above the surrounding terrain" doesn't fit. The phrasing also makes it sound unusual, but the Rabatel source says it is "representative of many tropical glaciers in the Andes with a relatively low summit elevation".
      • The surrounding terrain bit is discussed in the Thompson source and implicitly by Rabatel - the glaciers elsewhere in the tropics are more vertical. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:23, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • That meaning is not coming through for me from the existing sentence. CMD (talk) 04:34, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
          • Rewrote this a bit. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:25, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
            • Noted, I wasn't looking for removal, as if it is unusual it would be good to note, but the removal does deal with the source of uncertainty. CMD (talk) 11:57, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Between 1975 and 2010, Quelccaya covered a median area of 50.2 square kilometres (19.4 sq mi). It has decreased over time,[13] and by 2009 it..." It feels odd to just get a median and an (almost) end point with no other information. The source that Rabatel themselves cite [5] provides a loss rate in the abstract of "0.57 ± 0.10 km2 yr−1", and an 1980 size of "63.1 km2". I would suggest using these to frame the decline instead of the median.
      • I am a little wary of citing specific area estimates because they are imprecise and sources often disagree, e.g File:Coropuna ice cap extent 1950-2015.svg for Coropuna. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:23, 2 February 2021 (UTC)co[reply]
        • Is there a more general figure sources might converge on? Saying "median area" implies to me a process of expansion and shrinking, whereas the sources suggest it has been a reasonably consistent movement in a shrinking direction. CMD (talk) 04:34, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Temperatures of the glaciers at the base of Quelccaya reach the pressure melting point, except at some locations" seems to be from "Ice core temperature profiles indicate that the modern base of the glacier is at the pressure melting point, allowing for basal sliding, even though interior parts of the ice core are below the pressure melting point (Thompson et al., 2013)" in Malone et al. 2015, p. 113. If so, my reading is that the "some locations" refers only to the interior of ice cores, which presumably aren't at the base of the glaciers. I would thus suggest removing "except at some locations". (Can't in a quick look find the relevant part of Thompson et al., 2013 for more details.)
      • It's a few sentences later in the source that it says that not everywhere does Quelccaya's base reach pressure melting. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:23, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • Gotcha. Could the exception be included in the main sentence, eg. "In some locations the temperatures of..."? CMD (talk) 04:34, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
          • No, because that makes it sound like the temperature is the main difference. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:25, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
            • It is not clear to me from the current text that temperature is not the main difference. CMD (talk) 11:57, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
              • Well, it is part of the difference the problem is that this rewrite would overemphasize that aspect. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 19:37, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Not sure how "increased precipitation in the years 1870–1984" and "During recent decades, precipitation has not fluctuated significantly" can both be true. I don't have access to Koci et al. 1985, p. 973., but the abstract only mentions the 1500-1720 wet period.
      • That's a good question and I suspect what they want to say is that the precipitation changes while measurable do not have much of an impact on the ice. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:23, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Suggest moving the first sentence of vegetation paragraph, "The terrain west...", to the end of the paragraph, as otherwise "region" is ambiguous and shifting it makes a nice larger->smaller progression.
      • The problem here is that nobody has so far bothered to write or discuss anything about the terrain east of Quelccaya. So I am not sure if they have the same vegetation. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:23, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • "which characteristically thin downward". From source "Note the thinning of the annual layers that occurs with depth. Annual-layer thicknesses (ice equivalent) ranges from 1.2m at the surface to 0.01m at the base", it sounds more like an effect of gravity and time than a characteristic. I would suggest expanding to a full sentence with the 1.2m and 0.01m figures.
      • I am not so sure that we can put a lot of trust in these figures; they are likely to vary from one layer to another and the thinning is in fact a consequence of gravity. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:23, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • I think my concern is around "characteristically", which implies something identifiable and notable enough to be mentioned, but if it's just gravity I'd expect it is similar in other ice cores too. CMD (talk) 04:34, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
          • Yes, but the point isn't that this ice core is different from other ice cores; just that it's a normal trait for ice in ice cores. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:25, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • "one such flood occurred in March 2006 and drowned some alpaca." No concerns, just appreciating the dry bluntness.

Let me know if I've terribly misunderstood something. I made some copyedits while reading through, please feel free to reverse them if they are mistaken. CMD (talk) 16:46, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Hi Jo-Jo, have you addressed all of CMD's comments? If so, Chipmunkdavis, do you have sufficient information to decide whether to support or oppose? Gog the Mild (talk) 18:36, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Gog the Mild:All of them which I can action, unless it's a problem with the sources or one where I disagree or need feedback. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 19:37, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
CMD? Gog the Mild (talk) 18:12, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support, I don't see my remaining points as adding up to a WIAFA issue. CMD (talk) 01:28, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Quelccaya_Ice_Cap/archive1&oldid=1005694354"