Talk:Quelccaya Ice Cap/Archive 1

From WikiProjectMed
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Isotope names and symbols

Wikipedia:Naming_conventions#Isotopes_and_Nuclides says that isotope names are to be in oxygen-18 form, but sets no policy on symbols. I've inquired at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Isotopes; both O-18 and 18O are common on WP, but I can't make out if there is any system. In any case, for our purposes here, I think we should use the names, not the symbols, since the names will likely be easier for the non-expert to grasp. In any case, I think it is important to be clear that it is the oxygen-18 to oxygen-16 ratio that is correlated with temperature. It is a great start to the article and very interesting to me. Best wishes, Walter Siegmund (talk) 19:30, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, this along with a dozen other glaciers that have been undergoing similar studies would be very in depth. I consider this a stub and there is always room to grow. Thanks for the Isotope clarification...that is something I spent an hour trying to rewrite, since I don't like to quote verbatim and I know little about that subject matter.--MONGO 19:41, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Quelccaya Ice Cap. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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

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

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 23:53, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Quelccaya Ice Cap/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Femkemilene (talk · contribs) 08:38, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]


Will be reviewing this slowly over the next seven days. First impression is good, like all of your articles very detailed :). I might give some feedback that is not necessary to address for GA which I'll indicate as (Not GA: comment). Femke Nijsse (talk) 08:38, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Lede

Geography

Femke Nijsse (talk) 11:12, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Femkemilene:Answered some issues. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:06, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The ice cap

Geography

  • (not GA: I find this section difficult to read. Would it be possible to put some of this information in a table instead?)
    I don't think this can be table-ified to any substantial degree. I am a little unhappy with the wording of several parts of it myself and have rewritten it a bit. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:28, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Physical structures of the ice

  • with a crust of ice lying above snow. The source indicates that this was encountered once, not that this is the normal state of being. As far as I'm aware, normally what happens (glaciers/ice sheets in general, never heard of this specific one) is that the top layer is snow, then a layer of firn and only then you get ice. I think that snow can also be somewhat hard, so it might still have been snow. Am I wrong here?
    I dunno, but it sounds contentious to me so I've removed it. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:28, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't quite understand this sentence: caves associated with crevasses when they roof over. (also, maybe group the references at the end of sentence again)
    Edited; better now? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:28, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Physical-chemical traits of ice

Femke Nijsse (talk) 15:57, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Femkemilene:Replied to additional points. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:28, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Geomorphology

@Jo-Jo Eumerus: this was added non-chronologically.


Climate

Biota

Scientific research

(Enjoyed reading this section :))

natural history

Femke Nijsse (talk) 19:10, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Femkemilene:Resolved these issues. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 21:00, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Present retreat

  • with rapid deglaciation underway during the late 20th century -> Can you replace this with a more modern source stating since the late 20th century? (If you wait 3 days, the new IPCC report will be out! But there should be a lto of other sources available)
    Not sure that this is necessary; do you know any source. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 11:45, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The new report is out: https://www.ipcc.ch/srocc/home/. I don't think the sentence is relevant per se, but if you include it under a heading of 'presenst retreat', it would be weird to talk about something that is 20 years past. Femke Nijsse (talk) 07:58, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Femkemilene:Assuming that this contains all of the report, it doesn't seem like it says anything about the retreat, it just makes predictions of the future temperature. Would that be worth adding? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:34, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hydrology


Other requirements

  • complies with relevant MoS (1b). no copyvio, pictures have licence, broad in coverage, well sources, stable, neutral. While my preference is less detailed articles, it can be argued in good faith that it is written in summary style. .

The only GA requirement I think might not be entirely met is understandably to broad audience. Could you have a look whether you could simplify or explain some more jargon. The body of the article is tailored towards a university audience I'd guess, but it's still nice to have discipline-specific terminology a bit more explained. Femke Nijsse (talk) 10:33, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Femke Nijsse (talk) 10:33, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Femkemilene:Addressed more points. I prefer to write detailed articles, myself, there are many kinds of readers and some want the details. Regarding jargon, you'll probably need to flag some of that problematic jargon; I know it so I can't readily spot the unclear bits. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 11:45, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I think I might know a bit too little about geology to be able to say what is bad jargon (3rd year Bachelor terms?) and what is okay jargon (1st year Bachelor). I'll give it a try though. Did you see I skipped geomorphology and went over it later? Femke Nijsse (talk) 17:11, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Femkemilene:Er, no, I didn't notice. I guess the problem there is that we cannot really work without jargon in that section. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:28, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by 97198 (talk) 04:52, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: Will provide QPQ review later. If someone wants to use one of the two bird images in the article, that's OK.

Improved to Good Article status by Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk). Self-nominated at 06:40, 27 September 2019 (UTC).[reply]

Coordinates

There was an edit changing the previous coordinates to a more precise set but removing the source, the edit summary being Quite a number of other scientific articles have the coords as 13°56'S, 70°50′W, so taking the intermediate point here.. I've reverted the edit as it was unsourced but also because it seems like that, Quelccaya having an areal extent rather than simply being a spot, we probably don't want more precise coordinates. At the same time I am not sure how to assign priority in such cases; anyone? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 12:37, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Two sources

  • [1]: Not sure if the etymology also refers to Quelccaya.
  • [2]: Might be a reliable source for measurement errors.

Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 20:57, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Toponyms

This source has some toponyms for the ice features. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:00, 7 December 2023 (UTC) Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:00, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]