Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/2002 Bou'in-Zahra earthquake/archive1

< Wikipedia:Featured article candidates‎ | 2002 Bou'in-Zahra earthquake
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted by User:SandyGeorgia 00:49, 15 July 2008 [1].

2002 Bou'in-Zahra earthquake edit

Nominator(s): --I'm an Editorofthewiki, Meldshal42


I'm nominating this article for featured article because it is a very comprehensive account of this earthquake. It has passed as GA and has only since improved. I hope this will set the standard of FAs to follow out of the newly-created WP:QUAKE. And yes, there have been shorter FAs. --I'm an Editorofthewiki[citation needed] 02:26, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Co-nom I didn't really think this article was ready, but I helped pretty substantially to bring it to this level. This article is rather comprehensive considering its length. I want to see how this will work out. --Meldshal42 (talk) 16:02, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • This needs sorting. Meldshal42, you are the second highest editor on the article, a co-nom, and you also passed it GA. Someone at GA please sort. Also, if the second-highest contributor "doubts it will pass", it's not clear if FAC instructions were followed: "Before nominating an article, ensure that it meets all of the FA criteria ..." SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:33, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I personally think it meets all of the FA criteria, but for Meldshal, that may be a different story. Meldshal, why do you think this won't pass? --I'm an Editorofthewiki[citation needed] 17:02, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Fine, I agree. it may be short but it's rather comprehensive. --Meldshal42 (talk) 19:25, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose mostly per FA criterion 1a. I feel, among other things, that the article is a mix of complex jargon-filled language ("Background and tectonics") or overly simple sentences (first paragraph of "Damage and casualties". Some issues:
    • "The epicenter was located near the town of Bou'in-Zahra and was located in an area known for strong earthquakes." – "was located" ... "was located"? Try "near the town of Bou'in-Zahra, an area known for strong earthquakes"
    • Why is the magnitude not mentioned in the lead?
    • MoS issue: be consistent with your number format. One to nine are written out as words, while 10 and above are written as numerical figures.
    • "The earthquake had a shallow focus for the Earth's crust had to adjust to the strain caused by this collision." – What?
      • Changed to "The earthquake, which had a shallow focus on the Earth's crust, had to adjust to the stress caused by this collision." --I'm an Editorofthewiki[citation needed] 17:59, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • "An inversion of long-period P and SH body-wave seismograms shows rupture on a thrust fault which dipped 49 degrees to the southwest and with a centroid depth of roughly 10 km." – Either simplify the language or add relevant links. Why is present tense used?
    • Journals are merely repositories for published material. Therefore, you should list authors instead of the journal title in this sentence: "The Geophysical Journal International speculates..."
    • The entire "Background and tectonics" section is filled with subject-specific jargon, could you tone it down a bit or add links?
    • First line of "Damage and casualties" – mention Iran time zone.
    • Again, use proper number formats. See WP:MOSNUM#Numbers as figures or words. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 17:41, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Huh? --I'm an Editorofthewiki[citation needed] 18:26, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • These are things I ran into by reading approximately half the article. I request you find a fresh set of eyes to copyedit this article. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 18:44, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Could you please be more specific? --I'm an Editorofthewiki[citation needed] 19:15, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • Specific about what? I asked you to get someone new to the article to copyedit the article. If the prose is better, then I'll withdraw my oppose. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 19:31, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • I asked Meldshal42 to do some more copyediting. What about the prose, exactly, is making you oppose now? --I'm an Editorofthewiki[citation needed] 19:38, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
              • The prose is not of FA quality. That's my rationale; I stated that in my opening line. I'm not going to provide you specifics of sentences gone awry because I feel a good copyeditor should be able to fix these issues to my satisfaction. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 19:42, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                  • The LOC was shut down quite recently. I have read and re-read the article and have found no faults (ignore the pun) with it. Do you know of a good copyeditor that will help fix them rough spots? --I'm an Editorofthewiki[citation needed] 19:53, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                    • I recommend you contact a few people from WP:PRV. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 19:57, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                      • I did some outside copyediting per request by EditoroftheWiki, found several things that needed fixing/rephrasing. Got rid of lots of hyphens as well as moving the title using an ndash. I don't believe at this point is is an FA, but I think it could be there shortly. I've raised a couple of points on the talkpage about two instances of contradictory (in my eyes) information that need to be answered/repaired/explained. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 21:52, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                        • Some of these changes are incorrect; pls read WP:DASH and WP:HYPHEN. I'm not certain the name change was correct, either. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:27, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                          • Dashes changed back to hyphens, where appropriate. Editorofthewiki has reverted the pagemove. The hyphenated form was correct. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 15:18, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                            • New article name has to be fixed in many places, some involving an admin. I can't fix it this time, but the FAC has to be listed correctly on the article talk page, at WP:FAC and in the FAC itself, as well as in the article. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:36, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments -

Otherwise sources look okay, and the links check out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 19:09, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hmm, it seems affiliated with Amazon instead of being just a little family site. That was what convinced me to use the site. --I'm an Editorofthewiki[citation needed] 19:15, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • that's just a "we get a cut of anything you buy at Amazon if you go to Amazon from our site" link, which isn't that difficult to get. It doesn't mean that Amazon approves of the contents of the site, just that Amazon pays for referals to Amazon from their site. Ealdgyth - Talk 19:23, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • I would remove this source, but I can't find it within the article, where is it? --Meldshal42 (talk) 19:34, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • (ec) Meldshal42, see [2]. An association to Amazon does not establish reliability. Amazon is not an authority on earthquake history and facts, so even if it was approved by Amazon, that wouldn't mean okay the use of this site as a reference. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 19:36, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry but you don't get FA class articles in ten days from starting the article. Writing FAs takes weeks, evne months of hard work by several editors to get the desired result. It is a good article whence is a GA but the difference betwene a GA and FA is great. This article could be doubled in size easily and images added, and the paragraphs are not of the detail and quality you'd expect from an FA. Compare it to something like Ming Dynasty and you'll see what I mean that writing the best possible article takes time and effort and resources. It needed some major copy editing even before an FA proposal but that isn't the only issue. Proposing it this early is not a good idea, you should have at least peer reviewed it first to get some pointers on how to improve it. I'm not sure as Sandy suggested that you are aware of the FA procedure and what is expected of a top class article. I hope to see the article expanded and improved considerably over time and wish you the best of luck when it is indeed ready for it. ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ $1,000,000? 21:56, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Um, this is not about one of the most influential dynasties in Chinese history which lasted centuries, it's about an event which lasted ten seconds. I don't see how this could be "doubled in size easily"--it might be able to be expanded a little, but most of the sources are in academic journals which, for the most part, I, frankly, can't understand. This one took time and effort, and unfortunately I am not blessed with any books being written about the subject. I would love more images, but I don't know of a public domain source of which I can acquire some. Yes, I have not had this baby peer reviewed, but I'm trying for this FAC to be its de facto peer review. And finally, I am familiar with the FA procedure and what is a featured article, I already rewrote Lazare Ponticelli basically from scratch to bring it to that level. I wrote that from less sources than this, and it is less than a thousand bytes longer. There are plenty of shorter FAs than this, just check out some tropical cyclone articles. Do you have any specific concern which I may address immediately? --I'm an Editorofthewiki[citation needed] 04:03, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
But a featured article in ten days of starting it? Do you think that is really possible?? Most people spend months developing an article to FA whether it is an article on a 10 second event or a 500 year dynasty. I'm not doubting it will get there eventually but there seems to be a rush to get an FA without a proper peer review. My previous comment was addressed to the editor who remarked that it "probably won't pass" not yourself Editor. This is what a peer review is for, so discuss how to improve an article and address many of the major concerns before you propose it for an FA and have faith it stands a chance. I think it is a very good comprehensive article given the sources available but my main concern is the length of the article, which I think other sources should be researched at a library. I'm fully aware that there are shorter FAs, but what I mean is that I'm pretty sure this article could be expanded further to get the best article possible on it. ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ $1,000,000? 09:32, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Blofeld, it's not that unheard of. Saint-Sylvestre coup d’état was promoted to FA 12 days after being created. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 12:40, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well thats exceptional, especially on an article on Central African Republic. Congratulations and keep up the good work on that country. If more articles could indeed reach FA standard in such a small time frame I can only admire the editor. ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ $1,000,000? 19:40, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yomangani once nominated an article (and it passed!) within four days of starting it, I think. Or maybe it was a week.. something like that. Anyways, EotW, I recommend you withdraw this FAC; there are serious prose issues at just a glance. If asked, I'll elaborate futher. Nousernamesleft (talk) 03:09, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Additionally, your co-nominator said the article wasn't comprehensive on your talk page. Nousernamesleft (talk) 03:19, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Could you please elaborate? --Meldshal42 (talk to me) 22:55, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sure. I'll give a few examples of each type of problem.
  • Trivial grammar mistakes: The article is sprinkled with them. A comma, for example, is missing from the very first sentence. "The 2002 Bou'in-Zahra earthquake occurred on June 22, 2002 in northwestern Iran[insert comma here] which is crossed by several major fault lines." Also, a word is missing from a random sentence taken from the middle of the article. "An earlier death toll was reported as 500, though this number was dropped down when it was found some of the severely injured were mistaken for the dead." I'm pretty sure you can determine
  • General redundancy: i.e. not the common kind with "some," "a number of," and all those useless phrases. Example: "The epicenter was located near the small village of Bou'in-Zahra in an area known for destructive earthquakes."
  • Awkward paragraph flow: The first three sentences of the lead all start with "the"; it makes for a very odd read. Most of the article is like this.
  • Awkward sentences: "Iran is subject to many major and minor earthquakes each year due to being crossed by several major fault lines,[4] and it experiences minor quakes almost daily." -> You first say "major and minor", and then "minor" again. While technically and grammatically correct (actually, now that I think of it, the first part of the sentence is missing a word, but ignore that for now), it just reads awkwardly.
Thankfully, the article is short, but I still strongly recommend withdrawal, especially given your own admission that the article isn't very comprehensive. Nousernamesleft (talk) 23:41, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I understand that the article isn't quite ready and that's why I didn't want to nominate it yet (or for a long time, I'm quite busy at the moment). However, I saw Ed had nominated it so I went along with it. I've seen the rise of four major featured articles, so I think I could fix the prose at least. Thanks, --Meldshal42 (talk to me) 23:49, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have fixed quite a lot of prose issues. God, this is much tougher than other articles I have worked on! :) --Meldshal42 (talk to me) 00:12, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but not quite good enough - while the obvious mistakes of the first category have been cleaned up, and some of the others, I can still spot many awkward and grammatically incorrect sentences - for example, the first sentence of the first section doesn't read well. Maybe you should ask User:Epbr123 for some help. Nousernamesleft (talk) 01:14, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And I don't think that it's tougher - this article is pretty short, and can't be too hard to write - it's just that the reviewers are a lot pickier. ;) Nousernamesleft (talk) 01:27, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment
    • Ref 16 lists two publishers. Which is correct?
    • "... with magnitudes up to 5.1" - Could we clarify which scale this is on? Epbr123 (talk) 11:26, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

done --Meldshal42 (talk to me) 13:01, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Sorry about that. I'll continue doing work on the article, though it seems more and more unlikely to pass. --Meldshal42 (talk to me) 17:35, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/2002_Bou%27in-Zahra_earthquake/archive1&oldid=1160854012"