![]() | Seattle Fault 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. | ||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
![]() | A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the "
Did you know?" column on
August 27, 2004. The text of the entry was: Did you know ...that the
Seattle Fault is believed capable of producing an
earthquake measuring 7.0 on the
Richter scale? | ||||||||||||
Current status: Good article |
![]() | This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|
Having some familiarity of and interest in the topic, I have replaced the initial description of the Seattle fault with an expanded description, with sources.
I have left (at least for now) the section on potential damage as I have less interest and acquaintance with that. However, it could be much improved. Just following some of the articles I have cited (and look for articles that cite them) leads to a whole raft of stuff. (The tsunami studies certainly should be included - see nctr.pmel.noaa.gov/pugetsound/pre2/.) If I get back to this I will most likely pull that newspaper reference, as it is only a derived source, and I favor citing the source sources. If anyone else wants to work on this I'll be happy to help with the sources. J. Johnson ( talk) 23:38, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
Substantially augmented. My goal was to provide a comprehensive and scientifically accurate (including documentation) treatment, but keeping a popular orientation. (Scientifically this fault is no more significant than many others, but it has a much greater popular interest.) I think I have largely met that goal. Though could use some more images. J. Johnson ( talk) 23:15, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
I have finished a review and revision of the article, am about to request GA review. - J. Johnson (JJ) ( talk) 22:09, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
I have reverted the recent change of order of the appendices to restore the External links before the Notes and References. Granted, WP:APPENDIX says it should be the other way, but due to the extensive list of notes and references the readers are likely to not even see these links, which defeats the purpose of having them. In this matter I deem the MOS to be what it says, a guide, and that in this case the inversion of order is reasonable. - J. Johnson (JJ) ( talk) 20:32, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
I fixed the misspelling of "Haiti" in the caption under the picture of a tipped crane in Port-au-Prince. Since there's been so much discussion of the article, thought I should write this note. Confused at the inclusion of the Haiti picture, since this has nothing to do with the Seattle Fault. (I have no connection with Seattle or Haiti.) Melba1 ( talk) 17:08, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Racepacket ( talk) 02:11, 11 March 2011 (UTC) GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria
Thank you for nominating this article. No disamb. or invalid external links.
Do you have any views on the suggestions from the first good article review?
This has been discussed hundreds of times, and WP:IMGSIZE is a Wikipedia policy. There is broad agreement here among thousands of Wikipedia editors.
The issue is that every reader has a different display resolution, and you and I have no idea what that resolution is, or what looks good to the user. Except for one thing: we know -- or should presume -- that the user knows what they're doing when they set their user preferences. If the user says, "I think images look best in articles with a default width of 300px, it makes no sense to say back to them, "I can't see your display, I don't know what your monitor looks like, but I'm going to force you to have a 200px wide image here because that's what looks good on my display." Or to say to the user who has a very small display and has asked for 150px wide thumbnails, "No! You get 300px. It looks good for me and too bad for you."
With the (confusingly named) upright=
parameter, you set your image sizes in proportion to whatever thumb size they have asked for. They normally get upright=1.0
which is the same as |thumb|
, and for the lead image you raise that up to upright=1.35
, which is about 300px if they are using the default 180px thumb size, though it could be much more or less depending on their preferences. Some diagrams, or very tall or short images should be set to upright=1.2
or whatever to give a more consistent look, but still the basis is that upright=1.0
is a typical image.
If thumb looks too small on your display, that means you need to go into preferences and increase your default thumb size to something that makes the typical image look good on your display. That puts you in the best position to estimate how it will look when scaled to match whatever others have chosen for their displays. Forcing one image size on everyone pretty much assures it's going to look awful for every reader except you. -- Dennis Bratland ( talk) 18:27, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
This is Wikipedia policy. Exceptional articles may be exceptions, but this article is not all that exceptional: it's a text description with several photos and diagrams to illustrate. There's no compelling reason why it should be formatted in a dramatically different way than a normal article. -- Dennis Bratland ( talk) 22:36, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
What exactly is wrong with putting the external links section in the conventional location? What is wrong with converting units of measure for the benefit of people who might understand one system better than another? And what is wrong with fixing links to redirects? All of these are covered by Wikipedia policies and style guides. -- Biker Biker ( talk) 21:15, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
Splitting this off so will be little clearer. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) ( talk) 00:43, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
Prior to the discussion of MOS, or images (section above), is the common context and discussion of consensus, WP:BRD, and WP:AGF. What we have gotten into is some strong attitudes — mine as well as yours and Dennis' — and what I would like to discuss first is how to get back into a collegial mode. I invite your attention to the last line of WP:BRD#Bold: "If you do this cycle perfectly, most people will grudgingly accept you. Do it less than perfectly, and they will certainly be mad at you. Do it wrong, and they will hate your guts." My take on this is that you two have acted "less than perfectly", which has induced in me a strong antipathy to what you have done. (Strictly speaking I object only to how you have proceeded, but the antipathy is strong enough to color my attitude about what you have done.) Can we resolve this first, and restore some collegiality? Might I even ask for an assumption of good faith? ~ J. Johnson (JJ) ( talk) 22:18, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
I am still waiting for a discussion on the rude and arrogant manner in which two have proceeded. And I claim that you proceeded without consensus. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) ( talk) 00:43, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
The suggestion that anyone proceeded without consenus is absurd. The WP:MOS is the result of consensus of tens of thousands of editors. It's the basic rules that all articles use. There are uncounted numbers of Wikipedians who routinely find any and all articles that deviate from the MOS, and go right ahead and bring them into compliance. It's about the least controversial, least bold kind of changes anyone can make.
It is patently silly that you have become so offended at anyone's attitude. As if they had to politely wait for your permission before making simple MOS corrections. Wikipedia does not work that way. The only policy being violated here is WP:OWN. You do not own this article and it is a violation of the basic premise of Wikipedia to behave as if you are the gatekeeper of change to be made. -- Dennis Bratland ( talk) 00:52, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
The term "Indian" is ambiguous and antiquated when referring to Native Americans. Usage should be replaced with either a general term (like "Native American") or references to specific region groups or tribes (if that information is available). dgbrownnt ( talk) 01:56, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Seattle Fault. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 11:10, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 11 external links on Seattle Fault. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 03:03, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
WP:BRD has been invoked. @ J. Johnson: would you mind discussing what you find problematic in this edit? ☆ Bri ( talk) 22:36, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
As you asked so nicely: sure.
I have the following objections to Tisquesusa's massive edit.
|size=
parameter. Bri figured it in short order, so the issue is now moot. -JJinformation about earthquakes happening in Pre-Columbian times"? That section mentions no other earthquakes but the one discussed. Did you mistake mention of multiple reports of an earthquake for reports of multiple earthquakes? As it is, that section is about one earthquake, and making the header plural was factually incorrect. Certainly reason to revert. -JJ
f you advance a potential contribution on the article's talk page, and no response is received after a reasonable amount of time". But while Bold editing does not require prior discussion, neither is it required for Reversion. You should note the specific injunction: "
Don't restore your changes or engage in back-and-forth reverting." ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) ( talk) 23:49, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
Seattle Fault | |
---|---|
![]() The Seattle Fault cuts across
Puget Sound and into
Seattle itself. Restoration Point in the foreground, Alki Point is barely seen at the right edge of the picture. | |
Etymology | Seattle |
Coordinates | 47°36′36″N 122°19′59″W / 47.610°N 122.333°W |
Country | ![]() |
State | Washington |
Cities | Seattle |
Characteristics | |
Part of | Puget Sound faults |
Length | 70 km (43 mi) |
Tectonics | |
Plate | North American |
Status | Active |
Earthquakes | Notable earthquakes |
Type | Thrust fault |
Movement | Reverse |
Age | Eocene-recent (40-0 Ma) |
Orogeny | Issaquah Alps |
|upright=1.35
, but the infobox seems to boost it a bit. I should point out that the SF results from N-S shortening, not "Cascadia subduction" as such. I suspect the only "orogeny" that can be associated with the SF is that of the "
Issaquah Alps". :-) ♦
J. Johnson (JJ) (
talk)
01:22, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
![]() | Seattle Fault 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. | ||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
![]() | A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the "
Did you know?" column on
August 27, 2004. The text of the entry was: Did you know ...that the
Seattle Fault is believed capable of producing an
earthquake measuring 7.0 on the
Richter scale? | ||||||||||||
Current status: Good article |
![]() | This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|
Having some familiarity of and interest in the topic, I have replaced the initial description of the Seattle fault with an expanded description, with sources.
I have left (at least for now) the section on potential damage as I have less interest and acquaintance with that. However, it could be much improved. Just following some of the articles I have cited (and look for articles that cite them) leads to a whole raft of stuff. (The tsunami studies certainly should be included - see nctr.pmel.noaa.gov/pugetsound/pre2/.) If I get back to this I will most likely pull that newspaper reference, as it is only a derived source, and I favor citing the source sources. If anyone else wants to work on this I'll be happy to help with the sources. J. Johnson ( talk) 23:38, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
Substantially augmented. My goal was to provide a comprehensive and scientifically accurate (including documentation) treatment, but keeping a popular orientation. (Scientifically this fault is no more significant than many others, but it has a much greater popular interest.) I think I have largely met that goal. Though could use some more images. J. Johnson ( talk) 23:15, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
I have finished a review and revision of the article, am about to request GA review. - J. Johnson (JJ) ( talk) 22:09, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
I have reverted the recent change of order of the appendices to restore the External links before the Notes and References. Granted, WP:APPENDIX says it should be the other way, but due to the extensive list of notes and references the readers are likely to not even see these links, which defeats the purpose of having them. In this matter I deem the MOS to be what it says, a guide, and that in this case the inversion of order is reasonable. - J. Johnson (JJ) ( talk) 20:32, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
I fixed the misspelling of "Haiti" in the caption under the picture of a tipped crane in Port-au-Prince. Since there's been so much discussion of the article, thought I should write this note. Confused at the inclusion of the Haiti picture, since this has nothing to do with the Seattle Fault. (I have no connection with Seattle or Haiti.) Melba1 ( talk) 17:08, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Racepacket ( talk) 02:11, 11 March 2011 (UTC) GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria
Thank you for nominating this article. No disamb. or invalid external links.
Do you have any views on the suggestions from the first good article review?
This has been discussed hundreds of times, and WP:IMGSIZE is a Wikipedia policy. There is broad agreement here among thousands of Wikipedia editors.
The issue is that every reader has a different display resolution, and you and I have no idea what that resolution is, or what looks good to the user. Except for one thing: we know -- or should presume -- that the user knows what they're doing when they set their user preferences. If the user says, "I think images look best in articles with a default width of 300px, it makes no sense to say back to them, "I can't see your display, I don't know what your monitor looks like, but I'm going to force you to have a 200px wide image here because that's what looks good on my display." Or to say to the user who has a very small display and has asked for 150px wide thumbnails, "No! You get 300px. It looks good for me and too bad for you."
With the (confusingly named) upright=
parameter, you set your image sizes in proportion to whatever thumb size they have asked for. They normally get upright=1.0
which is the same as |thumb|
, and for the lead image you raise that up to upright=1.35
, which is about 300px if they are using the default 180px thumb size, though it could be much more or less depending on their preferences. Some diagrams, or very tall or short images should be set to upright=1.2
or whatever to give a more consistent look, but still the basis is that upright=1.0
is a typical image.
If thumb looks too small on your display, that means you need to go into preferences and increase your default thumb size to something that makes the typical image look good on your display. That puts you in the best position to estimate how it will look when scaled to match whatever others have chosen for their displays. Forcing one image size on everyone pretty much assures it's going to look awful for every reader except you. -- Dennis Bratland ( talk) 18:27, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
This is Wikipedia policy. Exceptional articles may be exceptions, but this article is not all that exceptional: it's a text description with several photos and diagrams to illustrate. There's no compelling reason why it should be formatted in a dramatically different way than a normal article. -- Dennis Bratland ( talk) 22:36, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
What exactly is wrong with putting the external links section in the conventional location? What is wrong with converting units of measure for the benefit of people who might understand one system better than another? And what is wrong with fixing links to redirects? All of these are covered by Wikipedia policies and style guides. -- Biker Biker ( talk) 21:15, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
Splitting this off so will be little clearer. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) ( talk) 00:43, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
Prior to the discussion of MOS, or images (section above), is the common context and discussion of consensus, WP:BRD, and WP:AGF. What we have gotten into is some strong attitudes — mine as well as yours and Dennis' — and what I would like to discuss first is how to get back into a collegial mode. I invite your attention to the last line of WP:BRD#Bold: "If you do this cycle perfectly, most people will grudgingly accept you. Do it less than perfectly, and they will certainly be mad at you. Do it wrong, and they will hate your guts." My take on this is that you two have acted "less than perfectly", which has induced in me a strong antipathy to what you have done. (Strictly speaking I object only to how you have proceeded, but the antipathy is strong enough to color my attitude about what you have done.) Can we resolve this first, and restore some collegiality? Might I even ask for an assumption of good faith? ~ J. Johnson (JJ) ( talk) 22:18, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
I am still waiting for a discussion on the rude and arrogant manner in which two have proceeded. And I claim that you proceeded without consensus. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) ( talk) 00:43, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
The suggestion that anyone proceeded without consenus is absurd. The WP:MOS is the result of consensus of tens of thousands of editors. It's the basic rules that all articles use. There are uncounted numbers of Wikipedians who routinely find any and all articles that deviate from the MOS, and go right ahead and bring them into compliance. It's about the least controversial, least bold kind of changes anyone can make.
It is patently silly that you have become so offended at anyone's attitude. As if they had to politely wait for your permission before making simple MOS corrections. Wikipedia does not work that way. The only policy being violated here is WP:OWN. You do not own this article and it is a violation of the basic premise of Wikipedia to behave as if you are the gatekeeper of change to be made. -- Dennis Bratland ( talk) 00:52, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
The term "Indian" is ambiguous and antiquated when referring to Native Americans. Usage should be replaced with either a general term (like "Native American") or references to specific region groups or tribes (if that information is available). dgbrownnt ( talk) 01:56, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Seattle Fault. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 11:10, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 11 external links on Seattle Fault. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 03:03, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
WP:BRD has been invoked. @ J. Johnson: would you mind discussing what you find problematic in this edit? ☆ Bri ( talk) 22:36, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
As you asked so nicely: sure.
I have the following objections to Tisquesusa's massive edit.
|size=
parameter. Bri figured it in short order, so the issue is now moot. -JJinformation about earthquakes happening in Pre-Columbian times"? That section mentions no other earthquakes but the one discussed. Did you mistake mention of multiple reports of an earthquake for reports of multiple earthquakes? As it is, that section is about one earthquake, and making the header plural was factually incorrect. Certainly reason to revert. -JJ
f you advance a potential contribution on the article's talk page, and no response is received after a reasonable amount of time". But while Bold editing does not require prior discussion, neither is it required for Reversion. You should note the specific injunction: "
Don't restore your changes or engage in back-and-forth reverting." ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) ( talk) 23:49, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
Seattle Fault | |
---|---|
![]() The Seattle Fault cuts across
Puget Sound and into
Seattle itself. Restoration Point in the foreground, Alki Point is barely seen at the right edge of the picture. | |
Etymology | Seattle |
Coordinates | 47°36′36″N 122°19′59″W / 47.610°N 122.333°W |
Country | ![]() |
State | Washington |
Cities | Seattle |
Characteristics | |
Part of | Puget Sound faults |
Length | 70 km (43 mi) |
Tectonics | |
Plate | North American |
Status | Active |
Earthquakes | Notable earthquakes |
Type | Thrust fault |
Movement | Reverse |
Age | Eocene-recent (40-0 Ma) |
Orogeny | Issaquah Alps |
|upright=1.35
, but the infobox seems to boost it a bit. I should point out that the SF results from N-S shortening, not "Cascadia subduction" as such. I suspect the only "orogeny" that can be associated with the SF is that of the "
Issaquah Alps". :-) ♦
J. Johnson (JJ) (
talk)
01:22, 16 March 2019 (UTC)