Talk:1930 Bago earthquake

GA Review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This review is transcluded from Talk:1930 Bago earthquake/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: LunaEatsTuna (talk · contribs) 17:56, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

• Comment: Hey Dora the Axe-plorer, I've seen you around Wikipedia quite a lot! Anyways, before I conduct my review I wish to disclaim that my knowledge on earthquakes is elementary; nevertheless, I hope that I can still give a good review and learn some things! 𓃦LunaEatsTuna (💬) 17:56, 1 January 2023 (UTC)
• Okay, these should be all my concerns. Fantastic article! If the review seems on the shorter side this is because most fixes were minor and I could do them myself. Please ping me once you have addressed my concerns. I will put the article on hold for now but this should not take long. Also, no hard feelings if you wish to respectfully disagree with any of my points; we can probably work it out. Good luck, 𓃦LunaEatsTuna (💬) 18:34, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

  Hi @LunaEatsTuna, thanks for taking up the review. I've addressed the prose issues. "The presence of citations in the introduction is neither required in every article nor prohibited in any article" per MOS:LEADCITE but I've moved that into the body. Dora the Axe-plorer (explore) 23:05, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

  Thanks for the notice. 𓃦LunaEatsTuna (💬) 23:23, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

• Fantastic work! I am now pleased to pass this article for good article status per the changes. Congratulations Dora the Axe-plorer, and I wish you luck on your other active earthquake GANs. 𓃦LunaEatsTuna (💬) 23:23, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

Good Article review progress box Criteria: 1a. prose () 1b. MoS () 2a. ref layout () 2b. cites WP:RS () 2c. no WP:OR () 2d. no WP:CV () 3a. broadness () 3b. focus () 4. neutral () 5. stable () 6a. free or tagged images () 6b. pics relevant () Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked are unassessed

Copyvio check

Earwig says everything is good to go.

Files

• File:The Shwemawdaw Pagoda (15354947282).jpg: good, CC-BY-SA 2.0;
• File:Shwedagon Pagoda 1900.JPG: good, valid public domain rationale;
• File:Yangon downtown at night.jpg: good, CC-BY-SA 4.0.

Prose

• Per WP:CITELEAD, the lead generally does not need citations unless content is controversial. Citations 2 and 3 are already cited later in the article; is it possible to use the first citation elsewhere in order to remove it from the lead?

• Some localities mentioned in Earthquake should be wikilinked, e.g. Tongyi appears to have an article at Tongyi, Mingin.

• "Widespread ground deformation was reported. Surface ruptures, fault scarps and fissures appeared." – might be personal taste but I reckon the full stop could be replaced with a semi-colon.

• "Several historically large and damaging earthquakes occurred on this fault." – does the source give any examples? If they have Wikipedia entries, this may be interesting to our readers.

• "for centuries but there is limited academic research to understand their" – unlink "academic research"; it is currently a redirect to research, a primary topic that seems unnecessary to link as most readers known what research is.

• "Shaking was violent enough to create large fissures, and thrusted alluvium was observed during surveys of the land." – wikilink alluvium.

• "The earthquake left a significant part of Bago in ruins" – does this sentence mean that an important area of Bago was ruined, or that a large part of Bago was ruined? If the latter, rephrase to "The earthquake left a significant portion of Bago in ruins" to avoid confusion.

References

All citations are usable (reliable) and formatted correctly.

Spot check on refs 4, 8, 10, 20, 21 and 26 show no concerns—they all support the article's content.

See also

Good; portals relevant.

Other

Recommend adding template:Use X English {{Use X English|date=January 2023}} (woah, '23!)

Infobox, short description, cats and navboxes all good; nice work!

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Red-tailed hawk (talk) 16:15, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

• ... that the 1930 Bago earthquake was a 7.4 moment magnitude earthquake that struck Myanmar, possibly killing up to 7,000 people? Source: https://www.nytimes.com/1930/05/07/archives/5000-to-7000-killed-in-burmese-quake-tidal-wave-wrecks-port-rangoon.html (for the up to 7000 dead).
  • Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/BMX XXX

Improved to Good Article status by Dora the Axe-plorer (talk). Nominated by Onegreatjoke (talk) at 22:25, 3 January 2023 (UTC).

Hi @Onegreatjoke:, thanks for nominating this for DYK. I thought of another hook that would be more interesting.
ALT1: ... that during the 1930 Bago earthquake, a witness observed surface waves propagating through a tennis court? Source: Coggin Brown (1932); Records of the Geological Survey of India Vol. LXV, Part 2; Page 221-270 (page 2 of PDF).

Would you like to consider this blurb instead? Thanks. Dora the Axe-plorer (explore) 23:18, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

• Hi Dora the Axe-plorer and Onegreatjoke (talk), review follows: article promoted to GA on 1 January; article is well written and cited inline throughout to what appear to be reliable sources; I don't have access to some of the sources but found no issue with overly close paraphrasing in a spotcheck; a QPQ has been carried out; hooks are both interesting enough for me; I added moment magnitude to the first hook as magnitude by itself is ambiguous; AGF on source for the magnitude, other facts check out to the sources cited. Looks fine to me - Dumelow (talk) 11:07, 4 January 2023 (UTC)