Talk:1959 Coatzacoalcos earthquake

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:1959 Coatzacoalcos earthquake/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Dawnseeker2000 (talk · contribs) 12:54, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

I can review this one.

1) First question before I go through the criteria one-by-one. I wasn't sure which source covers the duration. Could you please point that out? Dawnseeker2000 12:58, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

I assume you mean first line under header Damage where it says "35 seconds". The ref name is Martínez, I have added the in-line citation. Dora the Axe-plorer (explore) 13:17, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

MB, I also saw that in the infobox. Both are from the same source. Dora the Axe-plorer (explore) 13:24, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

2) For the earthquake section, is there any information about which direction the fault plane dipped? Dawnseeker2000 13:59, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

Suárez (2000) mentions a high-angle fault parallel to the coast but does not give details as to its dip direction. Singh et al (2015) provided a highly technical description of a simulation for ground motion. Since it's a simulation and its parameters (including fault plane items) are assumed, I didn't include it. Dora the Axe-plorer (explore) 14:29, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

3) You might have stumbled across some of the work of User:J. Johnson. He expanded quite a few articles and wrote much of earthquake prediction, Seattle Fault, and others. He hasn't been editing for a few years, but when active he was quite technical and rigid in his ways. One of the things that he impressed upon me was about the use of general media sources for seismological aspects. See Talk:San_Andreas_Fault#Use_of_newspapers_as_sources. for what he had to say. So this is about the source for the duration. What are your thoughts? Dawnseeker2000 23:26, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

Overall, I believe reliable media sources should be used for describing non-scientific & observable effects of earthquakes. Scientific aspects should come from relevant earthquake agencies/databases/academic research for their in-depth understanding. I haven't been stringent when it comes to the duration of earthquakes since I'm quite ambiguous towards it. In the case of this I inferred 35 seconds was the duration of shaking, which itself isn't a seismological aspect. Shaking duration is an observable effect hence I didn't see an issue with including it into the description. If there was an issue, I would think it's because I added that into the infobox parameter which maybe was to report its rupture duration. Dora the Axe-plorer (explore) 00:26, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

Right, and I'm glad you made the distinction, because that is one half of the (perceived) issue that I'm having. As you know, when reading about duration of events in the journals we usually are hearing scientists talk about the rupture duration or the strong motion duration. So if it is not specified, as is the case here, we have an ambiguous term. More likely than not though is that the reporter (Florentino Cruz Martínez) is speaking about the overall duration (this is the other half). I don't think he is more qualified that you or I on the matter and I don't think it would be unreasonable to request a second opinion at the reliable sources noticeboard. I want to pass this article quickly, but I'm having trouble convincing myself to tick the "citations to reliable sources" to OK in the table. Dawnseeker2000 13:33, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

In a few articles I looked at, the duration could either mean ground motion or rupture, and they reference scientific publications. Since this is the case, completely removing this duration info from the article would be reasonable. However the source's reliability is now being questioned, I'll add more thoughts once the second opinions (if requested) agree that it's a reliable source. Notify me if you have started discussion. A reply with the wikilink would be sufficient. Dora the Axe-plorer (explore) 15:11, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

I don't think we should get a second opinion for that source. I see that it doesn't have an article on the Spanish or English wikis, so it's safe to say that it's not super well known, but that doesn't mean it's not OK to use for the observable effects (quoting J Johnson). If you're OK with removing the duration that would be easiest and we can keep working on the other aspects. Dawnseeker2000 14:08, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

It's been removed. Dora the Axe-plorer (explore) 14:26, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail: