Talk:1968 Borrego Mountain earthquake

1968 Borrego Mountain earthquake has been listed as one of the Natural sciences good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Review: January 2, 2023. (Reviewed version).

Earthquakes Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Earthquakes, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of earthquakes, seismology, plate tectonics, and related subjects on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EarthquakesWikipedia:WikiProject EarthquakesTemplate:WikiProject EarthquakesWikiProject Earthquakes articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

California Low‑importance

	California portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject California, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of California on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CaliforniaWikipedia:WikiProject CaliforniaTemplate:WikiProject CaliforniaCalifornia articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Disaster management Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Disaster management, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Disaster management on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Disaster managementWikipedia:WikiProject Disaster managementTemplate:WikiProject Disaster managementDisaster management articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

GA Review

Latest comment: 1 year ago5 comments2 people in discussion

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:1968 Borrego Mountain earthquake/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: LunaEatsTuna (talk · contribs) 01:16, 2 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

Alright, this should be it. I will put this nomination on hold for one week, but I doubt we will need that long. Please ping me once you have addressed my concerns. Happy editing! 𓃦LunaEatsTuna (💬) 02:13, 2 January 2023 (UTC)Reply
I am now happy to pass this article for GA status per the changes implemented; congrats on the GA and fantastic work! 𓃦LunaEatsTuna (💬) 05:33, 2 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

Copyvio check

Earwig says good to go.

Files

File:Salton trough fault overlay.svg: good, SVG overlay under CC-BY-SA 4.0
File:USGS - San Jacinto Fault Zone.gif: good, public domain per its creation by the United States Geological Survey
File:USGS Shakemap - 1968 Borrego Mountain earthquake.jpg: good, public domain per its creation by the United States Geological Survey

Prose

"Principally, the two main faults" – redundant—principally and main are synonyms.
"Segments of the SJFZ are given names, though are considered part of the same system of faults." – I am not sure that this sentence is entirely necessary; are named segments a rare occurrence within seismology?
"There were no foreshock activity recorded in the hours to weeks" – just checking, is were instead of was correct here? I am not familiar with earthquake terminology so I feel the need to ask.
"Severe damage was restricted to within a 2,331 km2 (900 sq mi), but" – missing either an area or radius here.
"Many people described a long rolling motion that lasted up to 30 seconds. Swimming pools sloshed about for 10 minutes" use numerical whilst "Forty-five minutes later, a magnitude 4.7 aftershock (MMI VI)" and "which was docked at Long Beach to rock for five minutes" spell it out. Both are usable per MOS:UNITNAMES, but only one should be used throughout the article in order to remain consistent.

References

Overall, the sources used are RS.

Some of the refs to journals have full dates whilst others have only a year; these should be consistent IMO. I mention the journals because it generally makes sense for some citations (i.e. books) to only have a year whilst others (like news articles and usually journals) to have full dates.
Are there any links (doi or otherwise) available for the refs for the Geological Survey Professional Paper by any chance?

Spot check on refs 1, 2, 4, 9, 14, 17 and 25 show no concerns—they all support the article's content. (I disclaim that do not have access to refs 19 and 21 which I had also randomly selected for a spot check).

External links

Good.

Other

Recommend adding template:Use mdy dates and template:Use X English under short description.

Navboxes, templates, infobox and cats all good.

@LunaEatsTuna: I have fixed or clarified the issues in prose, and I cleaned up the references as well. Some were under the wrong type of reference which was why they were so seemingly disorganized. That is taken care of now. Let me know if I missed anything. Thanks for reviewing this article :) SamBroGaming (talk) 03:15, 2 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

Nice work; thanks for the fast response! 𓃦LunaEatsTuna (💬) 05:28, 2 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

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.

Add topic