Talk:1960 Valdivia earthquake/GA1

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.

---

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

Reviewer: LunaEatsTuna (talk · contribs) 00:40, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

Looks interesting! I will get to this within seven days. Please note that I am returning to GA reviewing after an hiatus, so please WP:TROUT me if I make a mistake. Thanks, ツ LunaEatsTuna (💬)— 00:40, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

Copyvio

Earwig Copyvio Detector says this is good to go.

Files

TBD

Prose

TBD

References

TBD

• Comment:
  • The second translation offered in the lead is not quite precise. "Great Chilean earthquake" would be "gran terremoto chileno". The Spanish term in the lead (and in the Spanish wiki) is "gran terremoto de Chile", which in English would be rendered "great earthquake of Chile".
  • The article title of the Spanish wiki refers to the event as the "megaterremoto de Valdivia de 1960" ("mega-earthquake of Valdivia of 1960"), but goes unmentioned in this English article. It ought to be mentioned as one of the alternative names at least.
  • The paragraph beginning with "A 2019 research paper postulates" is confusing. It mentions "previous and current more widely accepted" explanations for the earthquake's cause, but I can't find either one. Was there another explanation for the earthquake prior to the 2019 paper and, if so, can that also be mentioned and cited?
  • Presumably, the passage "which could help account for how the plate boundary event seemingly 'over spent' its tectonic budget" is meant to explain the possible cause for the earthquake in terms a reader with little to no knowledge about geology (i.e. me!) could understand. But, at least to me, it obfuscates it further. The passage that follows, beginning with "explanation for the earthquake involves" explained the matter clearly to me. I think it would be better to simply cut the "tectonic budget" section and go straight into "explanation for the earthquake involves".
  • In the section "Concepción earthquakes", the sequence of earthquakes is described as having occurred near a handful of "regions". In 1960, however, the system of regions had yet to be implemented for another fourteen years. Moreover, the boundaries of the present-day regions often don't coincide with those of the provinces which existed in 1960 (there are no articles explaining this on the English project, but see [1]).
  • There was no "Araucanía" in 1960, but there was an Arauco Province (which does not correspond with the former). In 1960, the region presently known as "La Araucanía" was made up of the provinces of Malleco and Cautín.
  • "Telecommunications to southern Chile were cut off and President Jorge Alessandri cancelled the traditional ceremony of the Battle of Iquique memorial holiday to oversee the emergency assistance efforts." This is true, but this information is not found in the only cited source in that paragraph.
• I have more comments, but seeing as I'm not the first reviewer for this, I'll hold off for now. However, if LunaEatsTuna is unable to continue their review, I'd be happy to step in ASAP. (Geology isn't a strong point of mine, but Chilean history is.) —CurryTime7-24 (talk) 18:49, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
  • @CurryTime7-24: I became unexpectedly really busy this week, so I would greatly appreciate if you could take this. ツ LunaEatsTuna (💬)— 19:17, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

    No problem. Glad to help. :) CurryTime7-24 (talk) 19:42, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

• @That Coptic Guy: I have not forgotten this GA review, but was detained by a trip last week. Will be returning to this review later tonight (PDT). —CurryTime7-24 (talk) 16:59, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

  Hi @CurryTime7-24 - Thanks so much for taking the time to review this as a Chilean history enthusiast. I will do my best to fix these errors within the week and ping you when finished. — That Coptic Guy^{ping me!} (talk) (contribs) 15:16, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

  If stuff comes up, don't sweat it. Take "seven days" flexibly. :) Thanks for nominating the article! —CurryTime7-24 (talk) 15:54, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

Reviewer: —CurryTime7-24 (talk) 07:41, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

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

---

Solid article, but grammar and spelling need improvement. Also, anachronistic place names need to be corrected (e.g. Cardenal Antonio Samoré Pass was known as Puyehue Pass or Paso Puyehue at the time of the earthquake). The passage on human sacrifice relies has a number of issues (see below); it would be best to cut that section. Also, I brought up a number of issues before taking over the review that I'd like the nominator to address as well.

1. It is reasonably well written.

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

   A number of typos, misspellings, and grammatical errors are found throughout the article.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

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

   The sources for the human sacrifice section either relate scanty information (Time) or anecdotes recalled decades later (El Diario Austral de Valdivia). The citation from Tierney lacks a page number for reference. The general impression is that the section teeters on WP:SYNTH.

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:

   Nominator has seven days to fix issues addressed above. After that, I'd like to do some spot checks on the citations provided.

• @That Coptic Guy: Checking in. While I did say take the seven days "flexibly", it has now been three weeks and I haven't seen any work done on this article. Please let me know if you can't continue the GA process. Thanks! —CurryTime7-24 (talk) 03:20, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
• :Sorry, I just noticed right now that you're on a wikibreak. Again, if you're not able to do the GA thing at this time, no sweat. Hope you're well! —CurryTime7-24 (talk) 03:22, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

Final comments

Failed "good article" nomination

This article has failed its Good article nomination. This is how the article, as of June 27, 2023, compares against the six good article criteria:

1. Well written?:

2. Verifiable?:

3. Broad in coverage?:

4. Neutral point of view?:

5. Stable?:

6. Images?:

I hate doing this, but it's been awhile and there has been no reply to any of my comments. No hard feelings, but this GA nomination cannot proceed. If the issues noted above were addressed by the nominating editor or somebody else and the article were renominated for GA, I would be glad to review it again.

When these issues are addressed, the article can be renominated. If you feel that this review is in error, feel free to have it reassessed. Thank you for your work so far.— CurryTime7-24 (talk) 21:14, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

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.