Talk:Rose Canyon Fault/GA1

GA Review

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

Nominator: SamBroGaming (talk · contribs) 09:21, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

Reviewer: RoySmith (talk · contribs) 22:18, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

• The right-lateral strike-slip fault extends for 30–50 km (19–31 mi) and slips at a rate of 1.1–2 mm (0.043–0.079 in) rate should be distance per unit time, presumably "per year".
• , though again, there are no visible faults connecting the two why "again"? That sounds like you're arguing with the reader.
• Shaking was widespread and felt in Los Angeles tell the reader how far away that is.
• it is not entirely possible to prove can this be said in a simpler way?
• Trenching of the fault reveals multiple ruptures what does it mean to trench a fault?
• 700±400 or 2000 years I don't understand what that means.
• modeling an M6.9 earthquake I'm guessing "M" means "magnitude", but explain this.
• will reach 0.55 g I assume g means Gravity of Earth?
• which trigger tsunami link tsunami

Spot checking [3, 8, 22, 2, 24] (in Special:Permalink/1193514274):

• 3 : Mostly verified, I'm not seeing where it talks about "the Rose Canyon Fault being one of the main faults in the ICB system". Could you walk me though that? As a side note, it's annoying (not your fault) that the pages are not numbered, so it's not entirely clear how to find p6. You might consider describing the location by section name, i.e. "Major Remaining Questions", or some other method which makes it easier to locate.
• 8 : Verified, but you might consider splitting your citations 8 and 9 to put them closer to the specific items they support. If nothing else, it'll make it easier on your reviewer :-)
• 22: I can only get to the abstract, could you please email me the full PDF?
• 2: Verified, but again, splitting the citations (1 and 2) would make things easier.
• 24: Verified, but once again, splitting the citations to be closer to the thing the support would be useful. I now see where "700±400 or 2000 years" comes from; one source says one thing, the other source says another. So you should be more explicit about this in the text, maybe "... variously estimated as 700+/-400 (citation) or 2000 (citation) years."