# Talk:Lascar (volcano)

I have removed the Good Article status from this article, as even a cursory glance indicates a lot of (probably minor) issues which should have been spotted and corrected before this was promoted. I have noted some findings, which are not an exhaustive list, at WT:DYK#Lascar (volcano) removed from Main Page. Fram (talk) 09:22, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Commented there. I had a bad feeling about this review from the outset. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:22, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
Well, it seems to have taken the reviewer at most half an hour, as they were still busy with another GA review at 13.54 on 10 October, and started and passed this GA review in one go at 14.26 the same day. That's rather fast to judge a 100 kB article with 206 references... Fram (talk) 15:38, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
Jo-Jo Eumerus, how would you like to proceed here? Possibilities include fixing the identified issues (and perhaps doing a review for more), and then renominating, or treating this as a reversion and putting the nomination back into the pool of unreviewed nominations to look for a new and competent reviewer (this latter way it retains its seniority). Please let me know your preference. I'll drop a note on the reviewer's page letting them know about the reversion and suggesting that they gain more experience in creating and improving articles before they do another review, given what they missed in this one. BlueMoonset (talk) 19:14, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
@BlueMoonset: I was thinking of renominating this, but as Khajidha noted there are some prose problems that I cannot easily resolve on my own. I could ask for copyediting, but where? (In addition, now that I checked GS a bit more, there are some newer sources I may need to review). So I am thinking of renominating the article, but not immediately. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:38, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
@Jo-Jo Eumerus: When you're done with any content changes, you can request copy-editing via WP:GOCE. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:46, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
Took a stab at updating it and compiled some unused sources on my talk page. @Nikkimaria: Well, the article was already copyedited before I nominated it for GA for the first time, so I am not sure if a second pass would necessarily catch all problems that persisted. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:57, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
Gave it an update. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:56, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
@BlueMoonset: Check me on this: This article was about 8 hours on the mainpage; would it be eligible for a re-DYK or was that too long? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 10:16, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
Jo-Jo Eumerus, I didn't look at how long it had run when I posted back in October. Looking at it now, it had nearly nine hours on the front page, and as the lead hook at that, which to me is definitely too long to warrant a new run. It's longer than an article would get if we were doing three sets a day, and very close to the two sets length (and we were running two sets earlier in the year). Sorry this isn't better news. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:19, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
OK, was just checking. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:43, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

This is about Giormark2's edit. I am not sure that we can count a single plume as an "eruption"; Lascar is one of these volcanoes that emit plumes all the time, and even if we do, we should probably describe it instead of just saying "eruption". FWIW, GVP doesn't say "eruption" and SERNAGEOMIN merely bumped their warning levels a bit. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:29, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

@Jo-Jo Eumerus: According to an article by the US National Parks service, Volcanic plumes of ash and/or rock may count as a phreatic eruption should it be caused by "steam explosions due to the superheating of groundwater by a magmatic source". However, I could not find any reliable sources regarding the cause of the recent plumes yet, so I will agree with you to mention it as a plume or simply as "increased volcanic activity" for now. Pentagon 2057 (T/C) 10:26, 11 December 2022 (UTC)
Rewrote the entry a little to account for this event, but I'll hold off changing the infobox for now. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:10, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

"Mountains of Fire: The Menace, Meaning, and Magic of Volcanoes." Publishers Weekly, vol. 270, no. 28, 10 July 2023, p. 50. Gale Academic OneFile, link.gale.com/apps/doc/A758336739/AONE?u=wikipedia&sid=bookmark-AONE&xid=ac4489d4. Accessed 9 Jan. 2024. says that there were human sacrifices to the volcano, but I don't see any other source claiming this. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:44, 9 January 2024 (UTC)