Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Peer review/2002 Bou'in-Zahra earthquake/archive1

< Wikipedia:Peer review

2002 Bou'in-Zahra earthquake

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because it frecently failed FAC and I would like some feedback on how I can help this article have a little star at the top.

Thanks, --I'm an Editorofthewiki[citation needed] 00:29, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just wanted to notify that this peer review was at my request, so bother me with issues, not Ed. Thanks, --Meldshal (§peak to me) 01:49, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I repectfully contradict Meldshal: I would have opened this peer review anyway if the FAC failed, which it did. Bother both of us with the issues then... --I'm an Editorofthewiki[citation needed] 02:21, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Initial Comments by User:Haha169

  • The first sentence in the lead sounds awkward. The way its written: "The 2002 Bou'in-Zahra earthquake occurred on June 22, 2002 in northwestern Iran, which is crossed by several major fault lines." just sounds plain awkward. Change it to: "...occurred on June 22, 2002 in a region of northwestern Iran which is crossed by several major fault lines."
  • "The earthquake's epicenter was near the small village..." - Was? So the village is no longer in existence?
  • The last two sentences of the lead needs cites.
    • Hmm, I'm thinking about abolishing citations from the lead in earthquake-related articles, since they are to summarize the article and not add new info. However, this might be a BLP violation without cites, so this one's Done. --I'm an Editorofthewiki[citation needed] 14:41, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The sentence in the lead concerning the death toll needs a <refname> transfer with the ref in the infobox.
  • "Iran is subject to many earthquakes each year; being crossed by several major fault lines." - should be changed to something like: "Iran is subject to many earthquakes each year because it is crossed by several major fault lines."
  • The entire first paragraph of the Tectonics section is full of individual, short, sentences of very little relation with each other. Better organization is suggested.
    • I think I've cleaned this part up enouh, but would like to hear your thoughts. --I'm an Editorofthewiki[citation needed] 14:41, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Merge the first three sentences there to form: "Because Iran is crossed by several major fault lines, 90% of it is seismically active and is subject to many earthquakes each year; the province of Qazvin experiences minor quakes almost daily." --haha169 (talk) 15:37, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I hope my comments helped. I'll be sure to leave some more tomorrow. --haha169 (talk) 04:21, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'm confused - there's no external links section? See 2004 Indian Ocean earthquake for an amazing example for constructing an external links section.
  • The "Damage" section is written really nicely. Good job.
  • This is a problem that I've faced in the FAC as well - some words are too difficult for some people to understand. Perhaps wiki-linking "centroid"?
  • "The Qazvin region was hit by an even greater earthquake in 1963, killing 12,200." - should be "which killed 12,200."

More comments. This article is doing nicely. I haven't much deeper ideas available at the moment, since I'm not much of a copyeditor - sorry. But if you can find more peer reviewers that have no knowledge about quakes, it would be very helpful to you. Good luck! --haha169 (talk) 15:43, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I just noticed this is from a FAC that closed less than two weeks ago. In the future, please read the peer review directions more carefully. Articles that have had an unsuccessful FAC have to wait two weeks (14 days) before they are submitted to Peer Review. The thought is that the FAC should have many comments for improvement and these should all be thoroughly addressed BEFORE submitting to peer review. Normally I would have archived this, but since I did not notice until now and it has a good ongoing review I will not, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 12:21, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Ealdgyth (talk · contribs)

  • You said you wanted to know what to work on before taking to FAC, so I looked at the sourcing and referencing with that in mind. I reviewed the article's sources as I would at FAC.
    • What makes http://www.iranmania.com/ a reliable source?
      • It is a news source. --Meldshal (§peak to me) 23:04, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • I'm afraid that reply won't help much at FAC. You have to establish its notability. Yes, its very difficult to do so, but not every news source is reliable. See The Onion for a prime example. --haha169 (talk) 05:08, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • I don't understand what your saying. The Onion is notable, but not reliable, as it is fake and everyone knows that. Are you indirectly saying that I cannot use the New York Times because it has been proven false on several occasions? We cannot be 100% sure that this article is correct, but that certainly isn't IranMania's fault. --I'm an Editorofthewiki[citation needed] 10:11, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hope this helps. Please note that I don't watchlist Peer Reviews I've done. If you have a question about something, you'll have to drop a note on my talk page to get my attention. (My watchlist is already WAY too long, adding peer reviews would make things much worse.) 13:36, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Peer_review/2002_Bou%27in-Zahra_earthquake/archive1&oldid=1138559266"