This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Nevado del Ruiz article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1Auto-archiving period: 12 months

	Nevado del Ruiz is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
	Nevado del Ruiz is part of the Armero tragedy series, a featured topic. This is identified as among the best series of articles produced by the Wikipedia community. If you can update or improve it, please do so.
	This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on July 19, 2009.
Article milestones Date Process Result September 18, 2008 Good article nominee Listed October 3, 2008 Peer review Reviewed October 12, 2008 Featured article candidate Not promoted December 28, 2008 Featured article candidate Not promoted March 29, 2009 Featured article candidate Promoted December 4, 2012 Featured topic candidate Promoted Facts from this article were featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on November 13, 2004, November 13, 2005, November 13, 2006, November 13, 2007, November 13, 2008, November 13, 2009, November 13, 2012, November 13, 2015, November 13, 2018, November 13, 2020, and November 13, 2022. Current status: Featured article

This article is rated FA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.

Disaster management Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Disaster management, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Disaster management on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Disaster managementWikipedia:WikiProject Disaster managementTemplate:WikiProject Disaster managementDisaster management articles Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. Mountains Top‑importance This article is part of WikiProject Mountains, a project to systematically present information on mountains. If you would like to participate, you can choose to edit the article attached to this page (see Contributing FAQ for more information), or visit the project page where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.MountainsWikipedia:WikiProject MountainsTemplate:WikiProject MountainsMountain articles Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. Volcanoes Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Volcanoes, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of volcanoes, volcanology, igneous petrology, and related subjects on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.VolcanoesWikipedia:WikiProject VolcanoesTemplate:WikiProject VolcanoesWikiProject Volcanoes articles Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. Colombia Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Colombia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Colombia-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ColombiaWikipedia:WikiProject ColombiaTemplate:WikiProject ColombiaColombia articles Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. Glaciers Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Glaciers, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Glaciers on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.GlaciersWikipedia:WikiProject GlaciersTemplate:WikiProject GlaciersGlacier articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Archives

1

This page has archives. Sections older than 365 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present.

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

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

This article is in decent shape, but it needs more work before it becomes a Good Article.

1. Is it well written?

   A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:

   Well done.

   B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:

   Dates need to be un-linked, per here.

   done. —§unday {Q} 23:45, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

   Check. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 14:47, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

2. Is it verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check?

   A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:

   It would be best if the references use the {{cite web}} format. Reference 1, 4, 6, 11, 13, and 15 are missing an accessdate. Reference 3 needs to be fixed.

   done. —§unday {Q} 00:49, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

   Half-check, there's something wrong with Reference 3. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 14:47, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

   Check. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 19:25, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

   B. Reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose):

   Does Reference 1 cover all this ---> "In 1595, a lahar flowed down the valleys of the River Guali and the River Lagunillas, killing 636 people. In 1845, a massive lahar flooded the upper valley of the River Lagunillas, killing over 1000 people. It continued for 70 kilometers downstream before spreading across a plain in the lower valley floor"? In the Geology section, the link to "Ring of Fire" needs to be fixed.

   done. —§unday {Q} 23:47, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

   Check. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 14:47, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

   C. It contains no original research:

   D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

   B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):

4. Is it neutral?

   It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:

5. Is it stable?

   It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:

6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   If the statements above can be answered, I will pass the article. Good luck with improving this article!

--  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 20:36, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you to Lord Sunday for getting the stuff I left at the talk page, because I have gone off and placed the article as GA. Congrats. ;) --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 19:25, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A quick apology: a few minutes ago, in attempting to revert an unsubstantiated anon-IP edit, I accidentally re-introduced some vandalism that had already been removed. Sorry. Feline Hymnic (talk) 19:22, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As redacted, the Geography and geology section implies that Machin is an ice-capped volcano, which it isn't. Also the USGS reference doesn't mention it, listing instead El Cisne as one of the 5 volcanoes. Maybe it should list El Cisne instead of Machin, or make it clear that Machin isn't ice-capped. --Canaima (talk) 15:34, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

1st paragraph

• "Between September and October" - meaning, I think, "During September and October..." (There's nothing "between" Sept & Oct)
• Similarly, from the context I understand "Up to 2011" to mean "From the beginning of 2011..."
• The sentence beginning: "Also beginning in 2010 were increases..." is awkward on several counts. It appears to jump back, chronologically; it is not clear what else was "beginning in 2010" - why do we need the "also"? We have "correspondent to" which I think should be "corresponding to". It is not clear what peaked in February 2012: increases in sulfur dioxide, or small eruptions of the volcano.

2nd paragraph

• A comma is advisable after: "After seismicity continued to increase..."
• "The peak in March passed without a major eruption..." The peak what?
• It can't be right to say the alert was "raised" to Yellow, when it was at a higher level
• Be consistent about "Orange" and "orange"
• The following clunks a bit: "Over the next few months ash fell frequently until earthquakes increased again in June, and evacuations were ordered by the Emergency Committee of Caldas on news media for 300–1500 people." Some tidier phrasing, and maybe a bit more punc, would help.
• "indicating an imminent eruption, and an eruption 7.5 kilometers (4.7 mi) in diameter took place" - "eruption ... eruption" should be avoided.

That is all I can see. Hope this helps. Brianboulton (talk) 21:13, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

These should all be fixed. Thanks so much! ceranthor 21:33, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In the article it says that the eruptions are Plinian. Here the Nevado del Ruiz is given as an example for Vulcanian eruptions: https://teknopedia.ac.id/wiki/Types_of_volcanic_eruptions#anc Which one is correct? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.197.136.53 (talk) 17:45, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I propose we move the 2012 eruption to the "Eruption history" section. Forich (talk) 13:50, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]