1892 Vacaville–Winters earthquakes has been listed as one of the
Natural sciences good articles under the
good article criteria. If you can improve it further,
please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can
reassess it. Review: July 10, 2021. ( Reviewed version). |
This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Editoneer ( talk · contribs) 06:10, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
surface faulting? Done I replaced the text "surface faulting" with "evidence of fault movement on the surface of the ground".
strike-slip, can you explain shortly what a strike-slip system means? Done I added the text "strike-slip faults are ones that move laterally alongside one another"
, the Hayward–Rogers Creek Fault Zone and the Concord–Green Valley Faults are the closest to Vacaville and Winters.So... did they collide with each other? Or for what reason are they being mentioned? Done Part of the scientists' work revolved around finding the causative fault, and it makes sense to look at the closest known faults as the source.
While the Hayward and Rogers Creek Faults have been given a 32% chance of a M6.7 or greater shock before 2030,, I assume they predicted that way back, but how did they do it? Not done The source does not go into detail about this, and it would most likely require an overly-extensive explanation anyway.
Multiple investigators, I assume they're seisomologists, right? Done Probably. They could be seismologists or geologists or some other title. I didn't have information on that, so I used the generic term "investigators". I've made a change to a slightly more specific (yet still somewhat generic): Multiple investigators → Numerous geoscientists
blind thurst, are earthquake that doesn't change the appearance of the field? Done Yes, you've got it right. There's an existing link to blind thrust earthquake to help the reader.
Wong and Ely, where from thin air those people appeared from? Can they get an introduction, first? I also don't see the mention of "low foothills" in the article along with this Sierran Block Boundary Zone. Done I removed the mention of Wong & Ely altogether and on page 1472 of O'Connell, Unruh, & Block, (2001), there's a graphic that shows the Vacaville / Winters area with the elevation increasing from the flatlands of the Central Valley as one moves west towards the coast range.
and was felt over roughly the same geographical area.Doesn't an earthquake is naturally felt over the geographical area? Especially of high intensity? Done The next sentence in the article (copied here) explains what this means → The area over which the initial shock was felt with an intensity of VIII (Severe) was about 1,100 km2 and the area for the second shock was about 890 km2.
a three dimensional crustal velocity model.So... a surface mimicking the area? Done I've added a section see also link to seismic velocity to help the reader
Proprietary seismic reflection data, I don't quite understand what this means. What's proprietary about this and how can it reflect what happened then? Done In some instances, the source of seismic reflection data are mining exploration endeavors from businesses. That's probably what happened here. In other words, the scientists could have done it themselves, but there were probably already records available that were used. The word "proprietary" just means that someone went through a great deal of work to obtain the data and owns the rights to it. I've linked seismic reflection to help the reader.
scrutinized, replace it with a simpler word. Done I've used the word "inspected"
T. ToppozadaAre they known by the "T" abbreviation in their name or can you just write their full name? Done
fissures, what is a fissure? Done I've linked ground fissure to help here.
inches,
mile, this is highly inconsistent even after the article uses
km^2. And I recommand to use a template that displays both miles and kilometers that will be understandable by every part of the world. Done I've used the convert template in two locations
lineaments, can this have a more simple term or be explained? Done This is another instance where the word that's being used is specific to geology/seismology, and I've linked lineament to help the reader.
boulders made their into the newspapers,made their way? Done made their into the newspapers → were written about in the newspapers
that were thrown down.Don't you mean "fell" down? Thrown can be interpreted that people went out of their way to throw their chimneys. 🤣 Done Let me think about this or use a thesaurus to come up with something better. I have made the change: thrown down → damage or destroyed
Good job and good luck. Editoneer ( talk) 07:59, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
There is no rush. Dawnseeker2000 18:12, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
further clarified that Vacaville was at the center of the destructionIt hasn't been clarified earlier A Mercalli intensity of VIII (Severe) implies damage, but not necessarily where, so Toppozada clarified by stating 'that the center of the destruction was at Vacaville'"
symmetrical and slightly elongated pattern on the north–south axis.pattern of what (intensity lines)? The term isoseismal map is linked in the beginning of that sentence. I added to the sentence. It now reads "An isoseismal map for the April 19 event shows an asymmetrical and slightly elongated pattern of isoseismal lines (of equal intensity) on the north–south axis" but it may sound redundant to some readers.
The total damage was estimated to be between $225,000 and 250,000, and one person was killed, but there are no reports in newspaper articles or in the earthquake catalogs on how many people may have been injured.This needs to be at least mentioned in the article (per WP:GACR 1b). There is a section titled damages so mentioning the cost is easy. As you say this and the death is part of the notability of the earthquake. Aircorn (talk) 18:37, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
the discussion has run its course |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Hello I have a draft response started and I will post that in the next few days. Dawnseeker2000 02:42, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
Dawnseeker: while we agree on the way forward, it would be good for you to reflect on your own behaviour here. I did not ask you to strike something lightly. FemkeMilene ( talk) 07:20, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
|
@ Aircorn: Ready for another look. Dawnseeker2000 04:27, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
Alright, I also want to say that I'm impressed that you took on this article in the first place. Sending it off for a second opinion was probably for a check of the English and grammar, right? Aircorn didn't find any problems with it, so would you care to pick up where you left off? Dawnseeker2000 11:59, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
Main issue is that there is information in the lead not in the body" as Aircorn said and then links the guideline referece
it complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation., I believe he specifically refers to Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section:
As in the body of the article itself, the emphasis given to material in the lead should roughly reflect its importance to the topic, according to reliable, published sources. Apart from basic facts, significant information should not appear in the lead if it is not covered in the remainder of the article.
significant informationrefers to long information that can not be covered by the infobox itself without degrading its quality. @ Aircorn:, I believe the last issue on the list shouldn't be fixed because it's simply not a problem, I will await your answer. Editoneer ( talk) 17:29, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
keep in mind the purpose of an infobox: to summarize (and not supplant) key facts that appear in the article. It is such an easy issue to fix and no reason has been given not to mention these key facts in the body. I stand by this, but like I said above it is up to you as the reviewer to close this as you wish. Aircorn (talk) 03:10, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
Alright, one of the things that you had mentioned early on was that there was (in the version that you first reviewed) no mention of injuries. Do you think that what I added is OK [1] in light of what the other editor mentioned about it? [2] Dawnseeker2000 07:50, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
The total damage was estimated to be between $225,000 and 250,000, and one person was killed, but there are no reports in newspaper articles or in the earthquake catalogs on how many people may have been injured.at the beginning of the Damage section and then we put the citation that proves the statement. I tried to look into [2] and [3] and can't seem to have the damages reported, how about it? Editoneer ( talk) 16:07, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
I have addressed Aircorn's concern myself, and will be passing the article. (btw, please call me Femke, Milene is a middle name). No need to prolong this. FemkeMilene ( talk) 11:12, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
1892 Vacaville–Winters earthquakes has been listed as one of the
Natural sciences good articles under the
good article criteria. If you can improve it further,
please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can
reassess it. Review: July 10, 2021. ( Reviewed version). |
This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Editoneer ( talk · contribs) 06:10, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
surface faulting? Done I replaced the text "surface faulting" with "evidence of fault movement on the surface of the ground".
strike-slip, can you explain shortly what a strike-slip system means? Done I added the text "strike-slip faults are ones that move laterally alongside one another"
, the Hayward–Rogers Creek Fault Zone and the Concord–Green Valley Faults are the closest to Vacaville and Winters.So... did they collide with each other? Or for what reason are they being mentioned? Done Part of the scientists' work revolved around finding the causative fault, and it makes sense to look at the closest known faults as the source.
While the Hayward and Rogers Creek Faults have been given a 32% chance of a M6.7 or greater shock before 2030,, I assume they predicted that way back, but how did they do it? Not done The source does not go into detail about this, and it would most likely require an overly-extensive explanation anyway.
Multiple investigators, I assume they're seisomologists, right? Done Probably. They could be seismologists or geologists or some other title. I didn't have information on that, so I used the generic term "investigators". I've made a change to a slightly more specific (yet still somewhat generic): Multiple investigators → Numerous geoscientists
blind thurst, are earthquake that doesn't change the appearance of the field? Done Yes, you've got it right. There's an existing link to blind thrust earthquake to help the reader.
Wong and Ely, where from thin air those people appeared from? Can they get an introduction, first? I also don't see the mention of "low foothills" in the article along with this Sierran Block Boundary Zone. Done I removed the mention of Wong & Ely altogether and on page 1472 of O'Connell, Unruh, & Block, (2001), there's a graphic that shows the Vacaville / Winters area with the elevation increasing from the flatlands of the Central Valley as one moves west towards the coast range.
and was felt over roughly the same geographical area.Doesn't an earthquake is naturally felt over the geographical area? Especially of high intensity? Done The next sentence in the article (copied here) explains what this means → The area over which the initial shock was felt with an intensity of VIII (Severe) was about 1,100 km2 and the area for the second shock was about 890 km2.
a three dimensional crustal velocity model.So... a surface mimicking the area? Done I've added a section see also link to seismic velocity to help the reader
Proprietary seismic reflection data, I don't quite understand what this means. What's proprietary about this and how can it reflect what happened then? Done In some instances, the source of seismic reflection data are mining exploration endeavors from businesses. That's probably what happened here. In other words, the scientists could have done it themselves, but there were probably already records available that were used. The word "proprietary" just means that someone went through a great deal of work to obtain the data and owns the rights to it. I've linked seismic reflection to help the reader.
scrutinized, replace it with a simpler word. Done I've used the word "inspected"
T. ToppozadaAre they known by the "T" abbreviation in their name or can you just write their full name? Done
fissures, what is a fissure? Done I've linked ground fissure to help here.
inches,
mile, this is highly inconsistent even after the article uses
km^2. And I recommand to use a template that displays both miles and kilometers that will be understandable by every part of the world. Done I've used the convert template in two locations
lineaments, can this have a more simple term or be explained? Done This is another instance where the word that's being used is specific to geology/seismology, and I've linked lineament to help the reader.
boulders made their into the newspapers,made their way? Done made their into the newspapers → were written about in the newspapers
that were thrown down.Don't you mean "fell" down? Thrown can be interpreted that people went out of their way to throw their chimneys. 🤣 Done Let me think about this or use a thesaurus to come up with something better. I have made the change: thrown down → damage or destroyed
Good job and good luck. Editoneer ( talk) 07:59, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
There is no rush. Dawnseeker2000 18:12, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
further clarified that Vacaville was at the center of the destructionIt hasn't been clarified earlier A Mercalli intensity of VIII (Severe) implies damage, but not necessarily where, so Toppozada clarified by stating 'that the center of the destruction was at Vacaville'"
symmetrical and slightly elongated pattern on the north–south axis.pattern of what (intensity lines)? The term isoseismal map is linked in the beginning of that sentence. I added to the sentence. It now reads "An isoseismal map for the April 19 event shows an asymmetrical and slightly elongated pattern of isoseismal lines (of equal intensity) on the north–south axis" but it may sound redundant to some readers.
The total damage was estimated to be between $225,000 and 250,000, and one person was killed, but there are no reports in newspaper articles or in the earthquake catalogs on how many people may have been injured.This needs to be at least mentioned in the article (per WP:GACR 1b). There is a section titled damages so mentioning the cost is easy. As you say this and the death is part of the notability of the earthquake. Aircorn (talk) 18:37, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
the discussion has run its course |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Hello I have a draft response started and I will post that in the next few days. Dawnseeker2000 02:42, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
Dawnseeker: while we agree on the way forward, it would be good for you to reflect on your own behaviour here. I did not ask you to strike something lightly. FemkeMilene ( talk) 07:20, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
|
@ Aircorn: Ready for another look. Dawnseeker2000 04:27, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
Alright, I also want to say that I'm impressed that you took on this article in the first place. Sending it off for a second opinion was probably for a check of the English and grammar, right? Aircorn didn't find any problems with it, so would you care to pick up where you left off? Dawnseeker2000 11:59, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
Main issue is that there is information in the lead not in the body" as Aircorn said and then links the guideline referece
it complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation., I believe he specifically refers to Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section:
As in the body of the article itself, the emphasis given to material in the lead should roughly reflect its importance to the topic, according to reliable, published sources. Apart from basic facts, significant information should not appear in the lead if it is not covered in the remainder of the article.
significant informationrefers to long information that can not be covered by the infobox itself without degrading its quality. @ Aircorn:, I believe the last issue on the list shouldn't be fixed because it's simply not a problem, I will await your answer. Editoneer ( talk) 17:29, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
keep in mind the purpose of an infobox: to summarize (and not supplant) key facts that appear in the article. It is such an easy issue to fix and no reason has been given not to mention these key facts in the body. I stand by this, but like I said above it is up to you as the reviewer to close this as you wish. Aircorn (talk) 03:10, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
Alright, one of the things that you had mentioned early on was that there was (in the version that you first reviewed) no mention of injuries. Do you think that what I added is OK [1] in light of what the other editor mentioned about it? [2] Dawnseeker2000 07:50, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
The total damage was estimated to be between $225,000 and 250,000, and one person was killed, but there are no reports in newspaper articles or in the earthquake catalogs on how many people may have been injured.at the beginning of the Damage section and then we put the citation that proves the statement. I tried to look into [2] and [3] and can't seem to have the damages reported, how about it? Editoneer ( talk) 16:07, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
I have addressed Aircorn's concern myself, and will be passing the article. (btw, please call me Femke, Milene is a middle name). No need to prolong this. FemkeMilene ( talk) 11:12, 10 July 2021 (UTC)