Talk:1898 Mare Island earthquake/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Ceranthor (talk · contribs) 19:28, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.
	2b. 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).
	2c. it contains no original research.
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
	7. Overall assessment.

Prose

• "with a moment magnitude of 5.8–6.4 and a maximum Mercalli intensity of VIII–IX (Severe–Violent)" - I think these can be split into a second sentence
• "With financial losses of $350,000" - this makes it seem as though the earthquake suffered losses, rather than causing them
• "Damage was the most pronounced" - don't think "the" is needed
• "While relatively strong effects there were attributed to vulnerable buildings, moderate effects elsewhere in the San Francisco Bay Area consisted of damaged or partially collapsed structures," - not sure what you're trying to say here; it needs to be reworded because it's too ambiguous and waffly as is
• "mostly mild aftershocks that followed." - mostly isn't necessary; maybe "strong to mild aftershocks followed" instead
• "One of the numerous strike-slip faults of the San Andreas Fault System in the North Bay are most often named as the source fault," - subject/verb don't agreement
• "as where the shock may have originated." - as where is an odd construction; I'd get rid of it and replace it
• The see also about a transform fault isn't needed No, it's not needed, but that's not a reason to remove it. We've had at least one instance where there was an editor that disapproved of the tectonic setting sections. The reason was because it was technical and that those types of details are only of interest to people that are interested in earthquakes, so one of the reasons that I link items like this is to make the content more accessible and understandable to the average reader. This is OK to keep.

That seems fair to me.

• Also, no need for the wiktionary "diffuse" This is fine as well (for the same reason).

I disagree. I think that diffuse is a fairly common word such that there's really no need to link to wiktionary to define it. If you're concerned that an average reader won't know the word, I'd suggest using a different word. ceranthor 19:16, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

• "the source because their trench investigation" - clarify what you mean by trench investigation
• "The innermost isoseismal" - think you're missing a word like "zone" here
• In see also at the end, list of historical earthquakes seems unnecessary

Comprehensiveness

• I think there may be more to add about the effects and damage. For example, you mention the $350,000 damage, but it's not explained in the body of the article at all.

Images

• Not sure how useful the various fault images are, as they all look rather similar in their current resolutions

Sources

• All seem reliable.
• I wonder if there are any more available scholarly articles available?

Copyvio

• All seems fine on this front.

General

• No dab links.
• Sources all intact.

Good work. Prose and images may need some fixes though. ceranthor 19:28, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

@Dawnseeker2000: I've replied to one of your comments above. ceranthor 19:16, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

@Dawnseeker2000: Are you still working on this? ceranthor 16:40, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

No. Go ahead and close it out. Thanks, Dawnseeker2000 19:32, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

Sorry to hear. Let me know if you ever bring it back to GAN. ceranthor 20:09, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

@Ceranthor: If I ever resurrect this, please let another editor have a shot at the review. Thanks, Dawnseeker2000 04:24, 23 May 2018 (UTC)