Talk:Gemmi Fault

Latest comment: 2 years ago by Jo-Jo Eumerus in topic Questionable source
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 SL93 (talk01:12, 9 September 2020 (UTC)Reply

  • Comment: Using the "last 10,000 years" definition of Holocene. Don't have time for QPQ right now, I'll do upon review I think.

Created by Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk). Self-nominated at 15:13, 28 August 2020 (UTC).Reply

  • New article, size good, well referenced. No issues. But I think the hook just falls flat (and doesn't flow well with the double "fault"). I have gone through the article looking for anything better and there is not that much. I do have one proposal:
That may be true and obvious to a seismologist, but I don't think the hook as written will mean much to the average reader. It would be better if the hook talked about the rarity as you explained it above - but that is not in, and is outside the scope of, the article. I think "luminescence dating" adds something to the hook that sounds interesting. Approving with both hooks; the promoter can pick. Both are properly cited at the sentence. AGFing that they are in the paywalled sources. MB 22:56, 30 August 2020 (UTC)Reply
I was hoping I could find sources discussing these two aspects, but I didn't find anything. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 12:45, 1 September 2020 (UTC)Reply

Questionable source

edit

This one is drawing a connection between 19th century earthquakes and this fault. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:29, 7 December 2021 (UTC)Reply