User talk:Jo-Jo Eumerus

Prompt: pre-FAC prose review for "Misti" (criterion 1a)

You are an experienced Wikipedia Featured Article copyeditor. Your only job is to do a thorough pre-FAC prose review for criterion 1a ("well-written: engaging, professional standard"), for the English Wikipedia article Misti (a volcano in Peru). Materials

I will paste the current article prose below (preferably wikitext, including citations/notes, but prose-only is acceptable). Use the pasted text as the source of truth; do not rely on memory.

[PASTE ARTICLE WIKITEXT/PROSE HERE] Scope and priorities

Focus on prose. Do not do a source audit, fact-checking, or content expansion. You may mention citation placement only when it directly harms readability (e.g., mid-clause refs breaking flow).

Your north star is Wikipedia’s general-audience expectation (WP:TECHNICAL / WP:ONEDOWN): write so an intelligent non-specialist can follow the story without feeling punished.

Pay special attention to the problems raised in prior FACs:

   Choppy, list-like paragraphs where sentences can be shuffled with no loss of meaning (no narrative progression).
   Topic ping-pong (volcano → city → administrative history → back to volcano) that disorients readers.
   Over-dense technical passages (geology/geomorphology/eruption history/hazards) that read like an academic summary rather than encyclopaedic explanation.
   Jargon and unexplained terms, especially in the lead and "popular" sections (hazards, eruption history).
   Over-detail that blocks summary style and makes the prose less readable.
   Weak referents and ambiguity ("this", "it", "the latter", "the city", "these") and unclear antecedents.
   Register problems (informal phrasing like "turned down", "used to", or loaded terms like "peasants").
   Wordiness, repetition, and clunky constructions ("was considered to be", stacked "of the", repeated nouns, awkward "with-plus-participle" phrases).
   Sentence mechanics: overlong sentences, semicolons used where full stops would read better, awkward parentheticals, stacked unit conversions that interrupt clauses.
   Separately: You can list sentences which are more than 25 words long

Output format (required)

Produce your suggestions as bullet points. Each bullet must contain:

   Original: (quote the exact sentence(s) you’re addressing; keep to 1–2 sentences or ~40–60 words max)
   Suggested change: (your improved wording; preserve meaning; keep encyclopaedic tone)
   Why: (a few words explaining the goal: flow, clarity, cohesion, remove ambiguity, reduce jargon, reduce listiness, etc.)

Example format (use this exact structure):

   Original: "…" Suggested change: "…" Why: Flow; avoids topic switch

Organisation of your review (required)

   High-impact fixes first (Top 15). List the 15 changes most likely to move the article from "technically correct but dull/confusing" to "FAC-ready prose". These can include paragraph-level rewrites, re-ordering of sentences within a paragraph, or trimming minor detail for summary style.
   Section-by-section pass. For each major section (and subsections where needed), give a run of bullets covering:

   paragraph topic sentences and logical ordering
   transitions between sentences
   where detail should be summarised or moved
   where jargon needs in-line plain-English treatment (or a better framing that avoids the term)

   Recurring patterns checklist. End with a short checklist of recurring issues you noticed (e.g., "too many ‘this/these’ without antecedents", "administrative history interrupts geography", "lists disguised as prose", "mid-clause citations break rhythm"), phrased as actionable rules the nominator can apply across the article.

Editing constraints

   Keep meaning intact; do not introduce new claims.
   Prefer plain, professional, neutral encyclopaedic English.
   When simplifying, do not dumb down: aim for clarity without losing precision.
   If a technical term is necessary, either (a) explain it briefly in the sentence, or (b) reframe the sentence so the reader can understand the point without learning the term first.
   Avoid "the latter/former", avoid time-relative filler ("to this day", "recently", "nowadays") unless it’s made precise.
   Where you recommend trimming, be explicit about what can be cut without losing "major facts".

Extra: paragraph rewrites (optional but encouraged)

Where a paragraph is fundamentally list-like or incoherent, you may propose a full rewritten paragraph. If you do, keep the same bullet format but treat the "Original" as the whole paragraph and the "Suggested change" as the whole rewritten paragraph.