Talk:1957 Alborz earthquake/GA1
GA Review
[edit]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.
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Nominator: Dora the Axe-plorer (talk · contribs) 15:51, 19 September 2024 (UTC)
Reviewer: Spookyaki (talk · contribs) 01:11, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
Hi! I will be reviewing this article.
- GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
- It is reasonably well written.
- It is factually accurate and verifiable, as shown by a source spot-check.
- a (reference section): b (inline citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):
- a (reference section): b (inline citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):
- It is broad in its coverage.
- a (major aspects): b (focused):
- a (major aspects): b (focused):
- It follows the neutral point of view policy.
- Fair representation without bias:
- Fair representation without bias:
- It is stable.
- No edit wars, etc.:
- No edit wars, etc.:
- 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):
- a (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
- Overall:
- Pass/Fail:
- Pass/Fail:
First readthrough, notes
[edit]Copyvio check looks good. Image check looks good. Writing looks solid. There were a few minor issues that I fixed myself. Other notes:
These features were like the result of landslides rather than tectonic movement.
— Did you mean "likely" instead of "like" here? Spookyaki (talk) 01:11, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- Yes that's a typoDora the Axe-plorer (explore) 01:47, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
The severity of damage decreased dramatically with distance towards the northwest and southeast compared to the northeast and southwest.
— Not entirely sure what this means. Did the severity decrease closer to the northwest and southeast or further away? Please clarify in the text. Spookyaki (talk) 01:11, 4 January 2025 (UTC)- "Outside this area, the degree of damage decreased sharply with distance further away in the northwest and southeast direction." Is this clearer? Dora the Axe-plorer (explore) 01:53, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- Maybe try "The damage decreased sharply northwest and southeast of this area"? Spookyaki (talk) 02:07, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- "Outside this area, the degree of damage decreased sharply with distance further away in the northwest and southeast direction." Is this clearer? Dora the Axe-plorer (explore) 01:53, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
Suggestions not required for GA
[edit]- An Oxford semicolon is used for the list of casualties, but Oxford commas are not used in the two village lists later in the paragraph. Oxford comma use should be consistent throughout the article per WP:OCOMMA. Spookyaki (talk) 01:11, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- Is it possible to link Kuhrud, Nur, Amol, and Babol? It seems based on the source that these are Now Khaleh-ye Jafari, Nur, Iran, Amol, and Babol respectively. Aliabad would also be nice, though I am unsure which one is being referenced in the source. If these links are incorrect/imprecise, that's also fine. Spookyaki (talk) 01:11, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
Some modern constructions in Qaem Shahr and Sari also sustained damage.
— "Sustained damage" used twice in a row. Consider changing the wording. Spookyaki (talk) 01:11, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
Going to go ahead and start the spot check. Overall, looks pretty good so far!
Second readthrough, spot check
[edit]- Fns 1, 2, and 3 are a bit technical. Would you mind explaining to me how they support the claims in the lead? Spookyaki (talk) 01:42, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- Fn 1 & 2 are the same but for Fn2, you need to download the catalog, so I'll take u to Fn1: 886779. It's basically the ID number for that earthquake and past the relevant literature there's a list of magnitudes, I referenced the Mw magnitude whch is 7.1 Dora the Axe-plorer (explore) 02:04, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- Got it. For fn 3, could you point out where the damage cost estimate is? Those entries appear to be blank for me. Spookyaki (talk) 02:12, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- I think the source removed it before this review so I've removed it entirely. Dora the Axe-plorer (explore) 02:23, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- Got it. For fn 3, could you point out where the damage cost estimate is? Those entries appear to be blank for me. Spookyaki (talk) 02:12, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- Fn 1 & 2 are the same but for Fn2, you need to download the catalog, so I'll take u to Fn1: 886779. It's basically the ID number for that earthquake and past the relevant literature there's a list of magnitudes, I referenced the Mw magnitude whch is 7.1 Dora the Axe-plorer (explore) 02:04, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- I do not have access to fn 4. Could you provide the relevant passage(s) here? Spookyaki (talk) 01:42, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- You may try The Wikipedia Library, to access some paywalled journals. Hopefully this is helpful in the future Dora the Axe-plorer (explore) 02:01, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- Account not old enough, sadly. Spookyaki (talk) 02:02, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- No worries:
The 1957 Sangchal (or Band-e-Pay) earthquake (Mw 7.1) occurred (Fig. 2 and 6a) at the focal depth of 10 km on the Larzaneh fault with south dipping in the central Alborz (Tchalenko 1974; Berberian and Qorashi 1989; Berberian 2014). This event was the second largest magnitude (Mw 7.1) event after the 1990 Rudbar earthquake during the instrumental period occurred in Alborz (Berberian and Yeats 2017). The focal mechanism of the 1957 main shock indicates that the general trend of the reverse fault, which hosted the 1957 main shock was NW–SE (McKenzie 1972). Jackson and McKenzie (1988) and Jackson et al. (1995) assumed the following fault parameters for the seismic fault of this earthquake: strike: 120, dip: 45, rake: 90. Except Ambraseys (1975) who reported > 3-km-long surface faulting with an azimuth of N120o E, no evidence of co-seismic surface faulting associated with this earthquake has yet been established (Berberian 2014). The general outline of the isoseismals with Mercali intensity indicates an E-W expanding with more damages in the southern side, which indicates the trend of the main shock fault directed to E-W and dip to the south (Gansser 1969). The length and width of the earthquake fault which was ruptured during the 1957 earthquake were estimated as ~ 50 and 25 km, respectively, according to the scaling relationship of Leonard (2010). The 1957 epicenter was located near the linkage of two antithetic reverse faults, south of Sangchal, near the western end of the right hand segment of the Larzaneh fault (Fig. 6a). In this case, the Larzaneh thrust fault segments were linked by a thrust fault. This SW-dipping linkage extended toward the NW and constructed a feature looks like a bend with an angle of ~ 30°.
- Dora the Axe-plorer (explore) 02:06, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- Account not old enough, sadly. Spookyaki (talk) 02:02, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- You may try The Wikipedia Library, to access some paywalled journals. Hopefully this is helpful in the future Dora the Axe-plorer (explore) 02:01, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- Thanks! Could you also provide the passage that supports the "Tectonic setting" section? Spookyaki (talk) 02:16, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- Here:
The Iranian plateau is an extensive active crustal deformation zone which is sandwiched between the stable Arabian plate in the southwest and the Eurasian plate in the northeast. The oblique convergence between the Arabian and Eurasian plates with 22 mm/yr, governed the deformation in Iran. The surface manifestation of this deformation is a combination of reverse and strike-slip faulting, which can be seen both in the geomorphic expression of the faulting and in the focal mechanisms of earthquakes. The active deformation in Iran is not uniformly distributed and includes intra-continental shortening and thickening in most parts of the plateau with cooperating the fold-and-thrust belts (such as Zagros, Alborz, and Kopeh Dagh), subduction of an oceanic lithosphere beneath southeastern Iran along the Makran, and strike-slip and reverse faulting elsewhere in the plateau (such as Eastern Iran). The Iranian plateau is a unique place with a well-documented historical earthquake record of at least 2000 years. Iran is one of the most seismically active areas in the world. Most earthquakes in the Iranian continental lithosphere occur in the upper crust, with the crustal shortening produced by continental collision between Arabia and Eurasia. Analysis of the seismicity (i.e., both historical and the post-1900 instrumental seismic data) and active faulting indicates that most of the earthquakes occur in regions such as Zagros, Alborz, Kopeh Dagh, and Eastern Iran, which in turn surround less deforming and less seismically active areas. These relatively aseismic blocks (e.g., Central Iran, Lut Block and the Southern Caspian Block) have lower and flatter topography and appear to have a greater rigidity than the surrounding belts.
Dora the Axe-plorer (explore) 02:26, 4 January 2025 (UTC)The active faults of Iran are direct indicators of active crustal deformation due to the on-going continental collision between Arabia and Eurasia. Because of this collision, it is unsurprising that the northern and southern limits to deformation are marked by thrusting, allowing for plate convergence via crustal thickening, whereas the western and eastern limits are strike-slip fault zones, allowing the Arabian plate to move past adjacent crust. Therefore, the strike-slip and thrust fault systems across Iran demonstrate the roles of oblique convergence, in continental deformation. The major patterns of the active faulting in Iran are as follows: (i) The longitudinal reverse faulting (such as the Main Zagros Thrust), the range-parallel right-lateral strike-slip faulting (such as the Zagros Main Recent Fault) and the transverse right-lateral strike-slip faulting (such as the Kazerun Fault) in Zagros (in the south and southwest), (ii) The longitudinal reverse faulting in Talesh (west of the Caspian Sea) and Alborz (south of the Caspian Sea) and the longitudinal left-lateral strike-slip faulting in Alborz, (iii) The longitudinal reverse faulting and the NW–SE right-lateral strike-slip faults in Kopeh Dagh (NE), (iv) The longitudinal reverse faulting in Sistan suture zone (E), and Makran acrretionary prism (SE), (v) The N–S right-lateral strike-slip faulting along the western and eastern margins of the aseismic Lut block (such as the Nayband and Neh Faults) and E–W left-lateral strike-slip faulting (such as the Dasht-e Bayaz Fault) north of the Lut block, (vi) The NNW–SSE right-lateral strike-slip faulting in Central Iran.
- Thanks! Could you also provide the passage that supports the "Tectonic setting" section? Spookyaki (talk) 02:16, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
...a south-dipping reverse fault...
— Quote "south-dipping" or rephrase. Spookyaki (talk) 01:42, 4 January 2025 (UTC)- It's a commonly coined term in the earth science field. I don't believe in quoting: "dipping to the south" is also wordy if they convey the same idea Dora the Axe-plorer (explore) 02:09, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- Oh okay, got it. That should be fine then. Spookyaki (talk) 02:12, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- It's a commonly coined term in the earth science field. I don't believe in quoting: "dipping to the south" is also wordy if they convey the same idea Dora the Axe-plorer (explore) 02:09, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
A 1 km (0.62 mi) long reservoir formed near Aliabad after a 10,000 m3 (350,000 cu ft) landslide obstructed and formed a 20 m (66 ft) high dam across the Haraz River.
— I can't see anywhere in the source that indicates that this happened near Aliabad, just that it happened near the "Nur Valley confluence". Am I missing something? Spookyaki (talk) 01:42, 4 January 2025 (UTC)- Woops I forgot to add the [1] FN: "A massive rockfall blocked the Haraz-rud near 'Aliabad ..." Dora the Axe-plorer (explore) 02:17, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
Damage was almost absent on the Caspian Sea plain with the exception of light impacts to tobacco facilities in Sari and Amol and a water tower in Babol.
— Is there a reason why Shahi is excluded? Spookyaki (talk) 01:42, 4 January 2025 (UTC)- I assume then that it's mentioned later (as Qaem Shahr)? Spookyaki (talk) 02:25, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- I didn't want to mix the two FNs together but I'll figure a way to combine them. Dora the Axe-plorer (explore) 02:27, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- I assume then that it's mentioned later (as Qaem Shahr)? Spookyaki (talk) 02:25, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
Some modern constructions in Qaem Shahr and Sari also sustained damage.
— Is this not mentioned already in the previous paragraph? Spookyaki (talk) 01:42, 4 January 2025 (UTC)- The damage in Qaem Shahr is not mentioned previously so I've retained that info Dora the Axe-plorer (explore) 02:20, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- Fair enough. Spookyaki (talk) 02:21, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- The damage in Qaem Shahr is not mentioned previously so I've retained that info Dora the Axe-plorer (explore) 02:20, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
Article looks pretty good! Just a few minor adjustments/clarifications and it should be good to go. Thanks for your hard work! Spookyaki (talk) 01:42, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- Looks good! I believe all my pressing concerns have been addressed, so I will go ahead and pass this article. Thanks again for your hard work! Spookyaki (talk) 02:30, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
- ^ Ambraseys & Melville 1982, p. 93–94.