# Talk:Misti

Hi Jo-Jo Eumerus. I have a bunch of projects going on, so (as a starting point) I fed the article's markdown copy into Anthropic's Claude Opus 4. It said it's very comprehensive and well-researched, but there are areas where the prose could be clearer and more accessible. 

I think this gets a lot of it right (although I'm not sure what issues Sandy alluded to). If you remember, during the review, I actually called out "hazards" as being a section I thought was very plainly and clearly written, which it reflected. Looking back at my review, I think my feedback still stands for the sections that I skipped entirely. I can't judge whether I'm meant to be able to understand it (WP:ONEDOWN), but I think there's enough substantive feedback here to get you started. 
I'm pretty confident it can become featured if the prose issues get ironed out. All the content is there. It just needs to be a bit more accessible. 
I need to be honest and say I have very limited interest in volcanoes/geology so I can't help with this on an ongoing basis, but if you make changes and want me to re-read, I'll provide a reappraisal whenever you need one from that perspective. Hope this is helpful! – ImaginesTigers 09:14, 4 August 2025 (UTC)

I've seen this, I'll try to action it. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:36, 6 August 2025 (UTC)
So I guess here we run into a bit of a tradeoff issue: Ignimbrite is already explained in a footnote elsewhere and rhyodacitic & calc-alkaline are a chemical composition. That would need either a lot of extra words and/or footnotes to explain. Same question about how to reword the Chachani and caldera sentence. And I don't think the eruption section jumps between time periods all that much. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:41, 10 August 2025 (UTC)
Anyhow, dealt with the "they" and phreatomagmatic point. I am afraid I don't know how to improve on the problematic sentences mentioned; SandyGeorgia can you help? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:53, 14 August 2025 (UTC)
Probably premature, but @ImaginesTigers: Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:24, 21 August 2025 (UTC)

I was asked by Jo-Jo Eumerus to look through the article (request here). I only have a very basic knowledge about volcanos and about geography and geology in general, so hopefully, this perspective will be helpful here. I will try my best to look through the article over this upcoming weekend, but please ping me as a reminder sometime later next week if for whatever reason, I do not come back to this. 
I do have a quick question about the notes. The placement of the notes in the first paragraph of the "General outline" subsection and in the second paragraph of the "Regional setting" section seem a bit strange. There are instances in which there is the note followed by a period/full stop and then it ends with the citation. The article seems to more consistently put the note before the citation, but I am uncertain about having punctuation separate the note from the citation. Is there a reason for this?
Otherwise, I look forward to reading through the article. I hope you have a great end to your week! Aoba47 (talk) 02:04, 26 September 2025 (UTC)

@Aoba47: (so this is something I should have headed up beforehand: In such pre-FAC reviews usually specific instances of issues to solve or query are better than general observations) For the footnotes, I put them after the word they are supposed to explain, hence they often occur before punctuation. References meanwhile usually support sentences or sentence fragments and thus come after punctuation, which I believe is also the usual style. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 06:44, 26 September 2025 (UTC)
Thank you for clarifying this for me and for the note. I will keep that in mind when looking through the article. Aoba47 (talk) 14:14, 26 September 2025 (UTC)

I would recommend linking Arequipa (the city) in the first image caption in the infobox.
Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:26, 27 September 2025 (UTC)
Is there a reason why it is known if the lava structure is either a volcanic plug or a lava dome? Apologies if this is obvious for those with more knowledge about this subject, but I am a bit surprised that a more exact answer is not known for this.
I suspect it's because they are overlapping concepts that are used somewhat loosely, so the same thing might be called this by researcher X and that by researcher Y. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:26, 27 September 2025 (UTC)
That makes sense to me. Thank you for the clarification. Aoba47 (talk) 02:11, 28 September 2025 (UTC)
This part, Snow falls on the summit during the wet season, but does not persist, reads as incomplete to me. When I read the sentence, I am left asking myself "it does not persist until when?" or "it does not persist until what point". I would just end this part on the "wet season", as it would be better to just make a definitive statement that snow falls at this point. Also, is the snow link necessary? It veers into overlinking, as I would imagine that most, if not all, readers would be familiar with snow on some level.
Sigh. I am pretty sure that snow cover on such arid summits evaporates, but none of the sources bother to discuss it, so we are stuck with what's currently said. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:26, 27 September 2025 (UTC)
Fair enough. That makes sense to me. Aoba47 (talk) 02:11, 28 September 2025 (UTC)
Just out of curiosity, would Misti be considered part of the Ring of Fire?
Yes. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:26, 27 September 2025 (UTC)
Would it be worth mentioning in the article or would this information not really fit or make sense here? Aoba47 (talk) 02:12, 28 September 2025 (UTC)
While I think the following part, run public awareness campaigns on the dangers of renewed eruptions and published a hazard map, is very interesting, I do not think that it connected correctly to the previous part of the sentence. I do not believe this sentence is grammatically correct.
Did a tense change; better now? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:26, 27 September 2025 (UTC)
I have made a slight revision to this part, but feel free to revert it if you disagree with it. Aoba47 (talk) 02:11, 28 September 2025 (UTC)
For this part, name from either the Quechuan language or Spanish, it may be helpful to clarify the variety of Spanish in this context. For instance, it would be a big difference, at least in my opinion, if this is referencing Castilian Spanish or one of the Spanish dialects of South America, such as Peruvian Spanish.
I'm afraid that my knowledge of Spanish dialects is essentially nonexistent; SandyGeorgia can you help? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:26, 27 September 2025 (UTC)
I would use the word "Misti" in the first sentence, as it seem a bit odd to motion toward it rather than just saying it outright.
It is used in the first sentence of the lead, or do you mean another section? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:26, 27 September 2025 (UTC)
Apologies for not being clearer in my comment. I was referring to the article itself. I just thought it was a bit odd that the first sentence of the article does not use the subject's name. I am referencing this sentence: The name from either the Quechuan language or Spanish means "mixed", "mestizo" or "white" and may refer to snow cover. Aoba47 (talk) 02:11, 28 September 2025 (UTC)
The article clarifies "Anukara" and Anuqara as from Aymara language, but do we know more about the origin for Putina? The prose is currently vague, attributing to a more general indigenous influence. Also, why is "Anukara" in quotation marks, while Anuqara and Putina are both in italics?
I think "Putina" is Aymara or Quechua. I dunno why I put Anukara in italics, but I suspect it was because Anukara is probably a Latinized version of anuqara. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:26, 27 September 2025 (UTC)
Somehow I didn't notice that there is a third language - Puquina - in the region. Putina is Puquina, clarified that. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:32, 30 September 2025 (UTC)
Thank you for looking into this! Aoba47 (talk) 00:16, 1 October 2025 (UTC)
The article says that the Misti name began to be used in the 1780s. Do we have any information on why that was the case? While the prose goes into the meaning behind the Misti name, I am less certain on how it actually came to be, other than that it started getting used in this specific time period.
I don't think the source explains this, but I have asked. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:26, 27 September 2025 (UTC)
Thank you for checking into this. I know that sometimes, this information is just not available. Aoba47 (talk) 02:11, 28 September 2025 (UTC)
Is there any further background on where these names came from: Guagua-Putina, El Volcán ("the volcano"), San Francisco, and Volcán de Arequipa ("Arequipa volcano")?
Not in the sources I know. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:26, 27 September 2025 (UTC)
That is fair. Aoba47 (talk) 02:11, 28 September 2025 (UTC)
Apparently there is a publication titled "EL TOPONIMO ORIGINAL DEL VOLCAN MISTI" but the only online evidence of what it says is this, which doesn't look like an RS. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:44, 28 September 2025 (UTC)
FordPrefect42 pointed this one out too. Just wary of false friends, they aren't rare in toponyms. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:46, 28 September 2025 (UTC)
I have a comment about this part, and there were canals, roads and buildings where Arequipa is today. MOS:REALTIME has "today" as one of the words to watch. I doubt that it really matters in this case, as it is unlikely that Arequipa is going anywhere, but I wanted to get your opinion on this as I have been told about this in past reviews.
I think a city's existence timeline is probably long enough that it's not an issue. When we have all ascended into transhumanism and don't need cities anymore, then I guess it can be debated again. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:26, 27 September 2025 (UTC)
Agreed. I was probably overthinking this, but I still wanted to ask as I did think about it while reading this part. Aoba47 (talk) 02:11, 28 September 2025 (UTC)
Does this part, whose residents view themselves as the offspring of the mountain, still hold true for the city's residents today? It may be ironic that I am asking this right after my last comment.
I don't know if there are contemporaneous assessments of folklore in Arequipa. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:26, 27 September 2025 (UTC)
Understandable. Aoba47 (talk) 02:11, 28 September 2025 (UTC)
The prose mentions that an Inca ceremonial platform was reportedly sighted in 2024. Was this ever confirmed?
Don't think so, but one year might be a short time. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:26, 27 September 2025 (UTC)
Agreed. It is not really a lot of time for updates. Aoba47 (talk) 02:11, 28 September 2025 (UTC)
Just out of curiosity, was there ever any backlash against a weather station or potentially an astronomical observatory being built on Misti? I know that this all happened in the late 1800s, but I was just wondering if there was any resistance to these actions, particularly given how the residents viewed themselves as offspring of the mountain and seemingly felt very connected to it.
Not that I have seen, although I wouldn't rule it out. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:26, 27 September 2025 (UTC)
Is there any reason why the Arequipa Department redirect is used rather than the primary Department of Arequipa link?
Just convenience of linking. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:26, 27 September 2025 (UTC)
Fair enough. Thank you for letting me know. Aoba47 (talk) 02:11, 28 September 2025 (UTC)
For this sentence, The mountain is visible from the sea., I would clarify which sea is being discussed.
Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:26, 27 September 2025 (UTC)
I have read up to the "Regional" subsection in the "Geography and geomorphology" section. I have not gotten to the more involved portions of the article, but when I get to those parts, I will let you know if anything is too confusing for someone less than familiar with this subject matter. I hope that this is more helpful. Aoba47 (talk) 01:20, 27 September 2025 (UTC)

Thanks. To clarify, while general observations aren't per se wrong in a pre-FAC review, often a pre-FAC review is done in situations where more help is necessary than a general observation. Didn't want to give the impression that I was imparting a binding order on how to run such a thing. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:26, 27 September 2025 (UTC)
Thank you for the replies and the explanations/clarification. You are all good. I made a more general observation/question at the start more so as part of leaving a placeholder, and I had always planned to do a more thorough run-through of the article. I will continue to read through the article. Aoba47 (talk) 02:11, 28 September 2025 (UTC)
I have a clarification question about this part, an iron cross marks the highest point. Do we know who put this iron cross at this point? If not, that is understandable (as I could see how this would not be documented), but if it is known a brief mention may be beneficial.
Actually, there is information - just that I put it in the religion section since it's more pertinent to human history than the appearance of the mountain. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:44, 28 September 2025 (UTC)
That makes sense, and I agree that this information would make more sense in a later section. Aoba47 (talk) 21:21, 28 September 2025 (UTC)
Since stratovolcano is linked in the infobox, I would also link it in the article to be consistent. I believe that this first mention in the article is in this sentence: The stratovolcano is made up of pyroclastic rocks and stubby lava flows, which form a 2.2-kilometre-thick (1.4 mi) pile.
Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:44, 28 September 2025 (UTC)
Apologies for bringing up MOS:REALTIME again, as this is likely another instance of me overthinking things, but I am uncertain of the "present-day" wording for this sentence, The present-day snowline lies above 5,800 metres (19,000 ft) elevation., especially since the source being cited was published in 1990, and things could have changed in the subsequent decades since its publication.
This time, climate change means we can definitively expect some changes. I have rewritten this section, since global cooling probably isn't in the cards for a few decades at least. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:44, 28 September 2025 (UTC)
Thank you for addressing this point. It looks good to me. Aoba47 (talk) 21:21, 28 September 2025 (UTC)
This is more of an observation, but I really enjoyed reading through the "Geography and geomorphology" section. I found the prose to be engaging and to be clear, at least to me.
Apologies if this is obvious, but I have a question about this part, the Nazca Plate subducts (goes under) under South America. Wouldn't it be that the Nazca Plate subducts under the South American plate? I am not sure if that clarification is necessary, as it is likely obvious from context, but I was uncertain if it would be better to clarify that this is plate going underneath another plate (rather than an potential misreadings that this is a plate going underneath a continent for instance).
I think that in practice it doesn't matter overmuch. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:44, 28 September 2025 (UTC)
That is fair. I doubt that people would be confused this. Aoba47 (talk)
For the second paragraph of the "Regional setting" subsection, why do the range of years go from largest to smallest (like with 30–15 million years ago) rather than from smallest to largest? This is done in later subsections as well.
I thought that this was standard? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:44, 28 September 2025 (UTC)
Maybe it is in this context. When I present a range of numbers, I would go from smallest to largest, rather than from largest to smallest. Again, it could be a context-specific thing (as in when discussing things from millions of years ago), or it could be a regional difference, as I use American English. Aoba47 (talk) 21:21, 28 September 2025 (UTC)
I think a link for "emplacement" may be helpful. Would the pluton emplacement article be the correct target for that? It may also be worthwhile to have a note or a brief part that defines what this is for readers.
Hmm, Pluton emplacement is about a specific process which doesn't apply here. I dunno about which synonyms could be used - for reference, ignimbrite emplacement is kinda like material settling over a large area to form a layer. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:44, 28 September 2025 (UTC)
Thank you for the clarification. I would recommend clarifying what emplacement mean in this context in some way, and its meaning is not clear to me. When reading this sentence, During the Cretaceous–Paleogene, the Toquepala Group of volcanics was emplaced., for instance, I am not sure what is happening as "emplaced" has not been clearly defined. Aoba47 (talk) 21:21, 28 September 2025 (UTC)
I was hoping that folks could reason "was put into place" from "emplace". Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:32, 30 September 2025 (UTC)
They probably would, and I am likely just overthinking this, so the current wording should be fine. It would probably be better to leave it as is and see if anyone else comments on it. Aoba47 (talk) 00:16, 1 October 2025 (UTC)
I do not think that fault needs to be linked in the same subsection (in the "Local setting" subsection).
Delinked. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:44, 28 September 2025 (UTC)
I am spotting some inconsistencies with whether or not the serial comma is being used. There are instances in which it is used (the arrival of new magma, assimilation of crustal material, and fractional crystallization) and instances in which it is not used (amphibole, augite, biotite, enstatite, plagioclase and titanomagnetite). I think that I see more instances in which the serial comma is not used, but I would be consistent either way.
Took it out; are there other instances? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:44, 28 September 2025 (UTC)
I removed other instances of the serial comma with this edit. 21:21, 28 September 2025 (UTC)
Citation 87 (Franco et al. 2023, p. 279) does not point to a citation, at least for me.
Looks like I mentally confused access and publication dates. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:44, 28 September 2025 (UTC)
That is an easy mistake to make. Thank you for correcting this. Aoba47 (talk) 21:21, 28 September 2025 (UTC)
Would be there any place for any artwork of Misti in this article? There are three options on Wikimedia Commons (in the El Misti in  art category)? The article does focus more on the geological aspects of the volcano (and understandably so), but I was wondering if it would be helpful to include a piece of artwork to illustrate people's perspective on Misti. I understand if there is not really a spot for this.
I figure there might be such a spot. Just not sure where, and which image. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:44, 28 September 2025 (UTC)
That is fair. I am not entirely sure where I would place one either, but I will let you know if I think of anything. Aoba47 (talk) 21:21, 28 September 2025 (UTC)
These comments are up to the "Eruption history" section. Apologies for doing this review in a more piecemeal fashion, as I do not have the time right now to thoroughly read the article in a single sitting (and I would like to do my best as a reviewer and be as thorough as possible). I have not noticed anything major, and most of my comments above are clarification questions. I hope that this is helpful. Aoba47 (talk) 03:03, 28 September 2025 (UTC)

Eh, it's a long article. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:44, 28 September 2025 (UTC)
For this part, It developed in four stages, numbered 1 through 4, should 1 and 4 be spelled out in words per MOS:NUMERAL?
Hmm, these are semi-formal names so it might be more precise to use the source wording.
I have a question about punctuation for the bulleted list in the "Eruption history" section. Several of these points are not complete sentences, so should periods/full stops be used in these contexts?
I have rewritten a bit. Is it still an issue? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:12, 1 October 2025 (UTC)
I think that I will leave this for other editors to see if they have any comments on it or even notice it. For instance, I would not think that this entry in the list, 43,200–38,300 year old "Anchi"., would need a period/full stop. Aoba47 (talk) 15:22, 1 October 2025 (UTC)
This is more of a minor note, but last two sentences of the first paragraph of the "Eruption 2,000 years ago and later activity" subsection and the first sentence of the second paragraph each start with "The eruption ...". I would recommend revising one of these instances to avoid repetition.
Rewritten. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:12, 1 October 2025 (UTC)
Should this link, Arequipa Airport, be changed to match the airport's official name, Rodríguez Ballón International Airport?
Seems like Arequipa Airport is much more commonly used. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:12, 1 October 2025 (UTC)
Makes sense. Thank you for clarifying this. I can understand that sometimes the official name for something is not the common name for it. Aoba47 (talk) 15:22, 1 October 2025 (UTC)
I think that further context should be given for the apu, whether it is a note or a brief descriptive phrase, as it was immediately clear to me what this was referencing until I clicked the link.
Footnoted it. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:12, 1 October 2025 (UTC)
I would include a short descriptive phrase for Johan Reinhard and José Antonio Chávez to provide some context on who these individuals are for readers.
Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:12, 1 October 2025 (UTC)
On a somewhat related note, I believe that Reinhard should be linked in his citation (and any authors with Wikipedia articles should be linked in their citations as well).
That's usually done by gnomes, but done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:12, 1 October 2025 (UTC)
Thank you for addressing this. I think that this work is important regardless of who usually does this, particularly for an article that is being prepared for a FAC. Aoba47 (talk) 15:22, 1 October 2025 (UTC)
Just out curiosity, have there been any deaths related to tourists and climbers visiting Misti, and if so, are there any regulations about this or any sort official statements made about it? This may not be notable enough to mention, but I was wondering given the difficulties mentioned about the climb (and the dangers with the volcano in general). I am guessing that this area (and Peru in general) encourages these types of tourism though.
I don't think that the governments in the region engage themselves in policing hiking activities, honestly. Certainly when looking at government sources on these mountains I didn't get the impression that governments care beyond the purely descriptive aspects. Even when talking about Ojos del Salado and El Tatio safety seems to be a topic for human interest stories more than the state. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:12, 1 October 2025 (UTC)
I had a feeling that was the case, but I wanted to double-check anyway. Thank you for clarifying this for me. Aoba47 (talk) 15:22, 1 October 2025 (UTC)
I have a question about this note, It has been christened the Fuji of Peru. Who christened the mountain with this title? I think that clearer attribution whenever possible is always helpful.
Even the source uses passive voice, and I wouldn't assume that it did the christening. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:12, 1 October 2025 (UTC)
I am not assuming that the mountain christened itself. My question is who did the christening? When I read this note, it reads as incomplete to me because it says that something is given a name, but does not say who actually gave that thing the name in the first place. I can understand if this information is not known, but again, it does make the note read as incomplete, at least to me, because it is missing this information. Aoba47 (talk) 15:22, 1 October 2025 (UTC)
But if the source does use passive voice, and there is not a clear attribution on who did this, then the current wording should be fine. Aoba47 (talk) 15:23, 1 October 2025 (UTC)
Yeah, the source uses passive voice and doesn't attribute. I suspect that this is something the source heard á la hearsay. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:07, 2 October 2025 (UTC)
I believe that the citation titles should be consistently in either title case or sentence case. I have seen more of a preference for title case in FACs, but I am not sure if there is a consensus or anything in the MOS about this.
I am pretty sure I did standardize this at some point. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:12, 1 October 2025 (UTC)
It seems like the majority of the citations use sentence case, but there are instances of title case still present, like with The Independent Republic of Arequipa: Making Regional Culture in the Andes. Aoba47 (talk) 15:22, 1 October 2025 (UTC)
Got these and some other issues. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:07, 2 October 2025 (UTC)
From my understanding, citations with non-English titles should have an English translation.
Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:12, 1 October 2025 (UTC)
Is there an author for Encyclopedic Dictionary of Archaeology? I having trouble tracking down this book through the ISBN. I am finding a book with this title by Barbara Ann Kipfer (as seen here). It just seems odd that Springer would publish something like this without an author being credited.
I think that she's the lexicographer rather than the author? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:12, 1 October 2025 (UTC)
I am seeing Kipfer being credited as an author on the Springer page, but even if she is the lexicographer, she should be credited in the citation. Aoba47 (talk) 15:22, 1 October 2025 (UTC)
Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:07, 2 October 2025 (UTC)
This is not required, but I find it helpful to alphabetize the categories to make them more easily accessible for readers.
Did that too. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:07, 2 October 2025 (UTC)
I hope that these comments are helpful. This should be everything until the end of the article. I did not find the article too difficult to navigate or go through as an unfamiliar reader. There were certainly parts that I was less familiar with, and would need to further up on to get the full impact and context, but as a non-expert in this field, I did not have any issues. Aoba47 (talk) 01:31, 1 October 2025 (UTC)

Replied to these things. Seeing if @Femke, SandyGeorgia,  and ImaginesTigers: have anything to add or to comment about the rewrites. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:12, 1 October 2025 (UTC)
Thank you. I have left some replies above. Everything looks good to me. I hope you are having a great week so far. Aoba47 (talk) 15:22, 1 October 2025 (UTC)