Talk:Laguna Negra, Catamarca/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Hog Farm (talk · contribs) 03:29, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Laguna Socompa loses its water through evaporation" - Laguna Socompa appears here with no previous references, which is a bit confusing.
Buh. 'twas a big copypaste error; remedied. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 19:07, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"and copepods were observed in ponds;" - "Were" can imply that the copepods were observed, but are no longer there. Maybe "and copepods have been observed in ponds;" is better
Replaced. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 19:07, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Is there a way to rephrase this section title, as copepods are also mentioned? Copepods are not vegetation, so the scope of the heading doesn't quite reflect the scope of the section
Sure, done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 19:07, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

" but uranium-thorium dating performed on one oncolites indicates that it began to develop in the Late Holocene" - The use of "one" and "it" suggest that only one oncolite was tested, but then the plural is used in the sentence, so its unclear if one oncolite or many were tested.
Replaced with a singular. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 19:07, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Gloss what an "entombed" diatom is
The source doesn't bother to explain, either. Added a Wiktionary link. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 19:07, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, I think this mini-section is probably out of scope. The Salar Tres Quebradas salt falt isn't considered to be part of the scope of the rest of the article' it's just a nearby feature that's briefly mentioned as part of the regional context. Since the Salar Tres Quebradas isn't part of the discussion for biology or much of the rest of the article, it seems odd to me to treat that feature as within scope here, but not in there. I'd recommend removing it, unless a strong case can be made for it being within the scope of Laguna Negra
I've commented it out. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 19:07, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There are two of the Gomez et al. cites where you cite multiple pages, but use p. instead of pp., use the latter.
Mended. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 19:07, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It seems a little odd to me not to mention how the lake got its name in the article.
There is no source that explicitly explains that. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 19:07, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]