Jump to content

Talk:1986 Chalfant Valley earthquake/GA1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA Review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing

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

Reviewer: Caponer (talk · contribs) 16:23, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dawnseeker2000, I will complete a thorough and comprehensive review of this article within the next 48 hours. Please let me know if you have any questions or comments in the meantime. Thanks again! -- Caponer (talk) 16:23, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

Dawnseeker2000, I have completed my thorough review and re-review of your article and I assess that it meets all the criteria necessary for Good Article status. I do, however, have a few comments and questions that must be addressed prior to its passage to Good Article status. Thank you for all your great work on this article. -- Caponer (talk) 16:39, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose, no copyvios, spelling and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:
  6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:

Lede

  • Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section, the lede of this article stands alone as a concise overview and summary of the article. The lede defines the earthquake, establishes context for the earthquake, explains why the earthquake is notable, and summarizes the most important points of the earthquake lead-up and event.
  • The California locator map is licensed CC BY-SA 3.0 so therefore it is free to use here.
  • The template is beautifully crafted and its contents are sourced in the prose and in the template itself.
  • In the first sentence, when using 24-hour times, a zero is usually required in front of single digit hours, and no a.m. or p.m. are required; per Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers.  Done
  • Consider adding more content from the "Tectonic setting" section so that the summary is a more comprehensive summary of each of the article's sections. Including previous notable seismic activity to add context would work. I've added a touch more to the lead from the tectonic setting section about the seismic gap theory. I usually don't preface that section in the lead because it's always at the top of the article and is usually densely packed material that can require lengthy explanations. But I agree; it's nice to have a comprehensive, standalone lede.
  • Long Valley Dam should be wiki-linked in the lede.  Done
  • The lede is well-written, its contents are cited below within the text, the references are verifiable, and I have no further comments or suggestions for this section.

Preface

  • This section is well-written, its contents are cited within the text, the references are verifiable, and I have no comments or suggestions for this section.

Tectonic setting

  • The first mention of Owens Valley should be wiki-linked in the prose as it is separate from the lede mention.  Done
  • The image of the Owens Valley region is licensed CC BY-SA 3.0 and free to use here.
  • This section is otherwise well-written, its contents are cited within the text, the references are verifiable, and I have no comments or suggestions for this section.

Foreshocks

  • This section is well-written, its contents are cited within the text, the references are verifiable, and I have no comments or suggestions for this section.

Earthquake

  • The USGS ShakeMap for the Chalfant Valley mainshock is releasable to the public domain and is acceptable for use here.
  • As stated above: when using 24-hour times, a zero is usually required in front of single digit hours, and no a.m. or p.m. are required; per Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers.  Done
  • The Aftershocks template is beautifully formatted and its content is internally cited within the template.
  • USGS in the "Strong motion" subsection can be abbreviated as such.  Done
  • This section is otherwise well-written, its contents are cited within the text, the references are verifiable, and I have no comments or suggestions for this section.

Comments

[edit]

Caponer, many thanks for the detailed review and the great suggestions. I've made some changes to the article and it's already looking better. Dawnseeker2000 02:02, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dawnseeker2000, thank you for your speedy reply to my above-mentioned comments and concerns. Following a review and re-review of this article, I find that it meets all the criteria for Good Article status and that you have satisfactorily incorporated my suggestions. Congratulations on a job well done! -- Caponer (talk) 16:26, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:1986_Chalfant_Valley_earthquake/GA1&oldid=648646593"