Talk:Misti/Archive 1

From WikiProjectMed
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Archive 1

Name

The name of the mountain is Misti. In Spanish, article El is added almost to all mountains. Don't get confused. Huhsunqu 15:09, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

That doesn't tally with the usage in the article, nor with the capital letter. Regardless of the function of the "El" in Spanish, common usage seems to be to call the mountain "El Misti" in English (only one incoming link points to "Misti" and that one's irrelevant, for instance). The next commonest name seems to be "Misti Volcano", which I don't like at all. --Stemonitis 15:53, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

The name El Misti does not mean or even imply "the mistful one". "Misti" is a word of Quechua origin meaning something more inline with "the great lord" or "the great one" This is a name that was given to the volcano sometime during the colonial period. The original (aboriginal) name is a disputed matter. It is simply a coincidence that the Quechua word "misti" is similar to the english word "mist". Incidentally, the Spanish word for "mist" is "neblina".

--Gazimmer 23:03, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Visibility of the mountains

These impressive mountains, located northeast of Arequipa, are visible almost year-round, but especially during winter (May-September).

Believe me, I live here and the 3 mountains are visible all year. --200.121.82.203 (talk) 23:51, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Sources

http://revistas.pucp.edu.pe/index.php/boletindearqueologia/article/view/1823. Also note that as said in Huaynaputina the name of that volcano is sometimes incorrectly applied to this one. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 07:04, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=intitle%3A%22misti%22&hl=de&as_sdt=0%2C5&as_ylo=&as_yhi=2001 and https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=intitle%3A%22misti%22&hl=de&as_sdt=0%2C5&as_ylo=2002&as_yhi= Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 12:25, 15 November 2023 (UTC)
Splitting the second list due to length:
Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:55, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

Abstracts

[1][2][3]

Questions

A few questions to ask:

Finally, the article currently discusses the specific hazards to Arequipa in a region-wide average; mining INGEMMET could yield information on individual city sectors if we want to, but it would greatly lengthen the article. And a history of human settlement in the area might be nice too. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:20, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

Questions #2

Addition

Pages 135-136 of Queen of the Mountaineers: The Trailblazing Life of Fanny Bullock Workman apparently contain "Peck was confident the trek would be easy. After all, she had easily climbed El Misti in Peru, which was 19,098 feet high. That [(page break)] should have been proof enough that she could accomplish a great deal more." according to WP:RX. Dunno if there is anything worth adding. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:30, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

GA Review

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

Reviewer: AryKun (talk · contribs) 19:53, 29 January 2024 (UTC)


  • Hey, sorry for how long this is taking. This is a bit of a longer article, so I'll add comments section-by-section.
Extended content
  • What is a "house mountain"?
    My understanding is that the iconic mountain of a town, or at least the mountain most important to a town, is often called a "house mountain". Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:08, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
    Could you gloss this in the article? AryKun (talk) 08:24, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
    Linked, apparently the German concept applies across languages. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:53, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
  • "950 metres (3,120 ft)-835 metres (2,740 ft)" I can't figure out what this is. These should be in one convert template together; if the sources citing each length are different, just put both of them after it together.
    Nah, for such contradictions I put each claim with its source. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:05, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
    Well, then this shouldn't be presented as a range, but as "835 metres (2,740 ft) or 950 metres (3,120 ft)". In its current form, it's almost unreadable anyway.
  • "90 cubic kilometres (22 cu mi)-40 cubic kilometres (9.6 cu mi)." Same issue as above.
    Did both. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:53, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
  • "Discrepancies between elevation...different datums." How are you citing the reasons for differences between measurements made in 2001 and 2021 to sources written 80–100 years before that? These might be talking about discrepancies more generally, but they can't be used for the recent measurements, they're just too outdated.
    'cause this is a problem even today. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:05, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
    But that source can't verify that, since it was made nowhere close to today. I'm not comfortable with such an old source being used to source issues with studies conducted over 80 years afterwards; aren't there any more recent sources that discuss the same issue?
    Not for Misti specifically, no. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:53, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
    Could you just remove the statement "Discrepancies between...different datums." then? I don't think sources written 100 years ago can be used to explain discrepancies in modern studies, and I find the linking of the two to be kind of OR. AryKun (talk) 19:39, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
    Commented out. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 14:51, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
  • New towns linking to planned settles is an EGG.
    I don't see it. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:05, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
    I'd expect new towns to link to, well, new towns, not planned settlements. Planned settlements have nothing to do with being new, and most new towns aren't planned. Maybe just say "new planned settlements" instead if that's what they are and the sources say so? The other solution would be removing the link.
    Unlinked. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:53, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
  • Jo-Jo Eumerus I've collapsed all the comments I think have been addressed sufficiently, there's only a couple left that I've added further responses for. AryKun (talk) 12:53, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
  • References are reliable and used correctly; will pass now. AryKun (talk) 09:28, 25 February 2024 (UTC)


Good Article review progress box
Criteria: 1a. prose () 1b. MoS () 2a. ref layout () 2b. cites WP:RS () 2c. no WP:OR () 2d. no WP:CV ()
3a. broadness () 3b. focus () 4. neutral () 5. stable () 6a. free or tagged images () 6b. pics relevant ()
Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked are unassessed