Talk:1962 Buin Zahra earthquake/GA1

GA Review[edit]

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

Reviewer: Canadian Paul 02:10, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I will be reviewing this article in the near future, most likely tomorrow. Canadian Paul 02:10, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, here it is:

GA review (see here for criteria)

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose): b (MoS):
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.:
It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Overall:
Pass/Fail:

Some comments:

The third link under "Bibliography" is dead. References #4 #10 should note that a subscription (or whatever it is) is required for access. Reference #12 just says "Di Cinto pp. 272", but nowhere is a full reference for his publication produced.
The largest problem with this article is that it doesn't actually mention the earthquake happening in the body of the article itself! It mentions some details in the lead, but the lead should not introduce facts that are not present in the body of the article. This absence really throws off the entire article - it leaves it with a disorganized feeling and, as reader, I felt that the information I was reading was... I'm not sure... out of context, perhaps, because it takes a while for it to be tied to the subject of the article, which should be the focus. In any case, if you added something even to the effect of "On Day X, 1962, an earthquake centered in Y hit Iran" and then continued with what is there, it might really help. Also, what exactly "Bou'in-Zahra" is is never mentioned in the body - is it a city, province etc.?
Regarding the prose, it's very choppy and difficult to read at parts. There are too many short sentences that could easily be combined to improve flow. The very short paragraphs are an issue for prose flow as well - usually my rule is that paragraphs should be at least three sentences, but here meeting that requirement doesn't particularly help. If you could combine smaller, related paragraphs or attach one onto a larger one, it might help. Right now, it reads almost like a bulleted list of facts and information.
The picture of where the earthquake struck would be much more appropriate in the introduction of the article to help situate the reader for what is to follow.
Under "Geology", second paragraph, "In fact, the earthquake rate is lower than the national amount" - Aside from "in fact" not being a particularly encyclopedic phrase, this statement is not sourced - the article merely says that "Experts say earthquakes here are infrequent,".
Same section, third paragraph, "A feature that, with its connected, smaller faults, extends for 64 miles (103 km), it runs from the village of Ipak to Takhrijin" is technically a correct sentence, but is very difficult to read and could probably be re-organized, perhaps by adding "It is..." at the beginning or "A feature that extends for 64 miles (103 km), with its connected, smaller faults, it runs...
Same section, fourth paragraph, "For this theory, Manuel Berberian presents various examples." Who is Manuel Berberian and why do we care about what he has to say? Without introducing him by profession and credentials, I have no idea if he's some guy off the street or a credible expert.
Same paragraph, I really feel that this strays from the topic of the article. Yes, some background is helpful, but I'm not sure how Person X's theories about the fault line itself matter in the context of an article about a particular earthquake. Maybe if this were an article about the Ipak Fault or Earthquakes in Qazvin Province, but here it just seems out of place, particularly as the earthquake itself has barely been mentioned in the body of the article. Again, the focus of this article should be on the event.
Under "Damage and casualties", second paragraph "Cities as far away as Tabriz, Esfahan and Yazd reported the tremor." - This doesn't mean too much without knowing how far away these places are.
Other than the reference problem mentioned, I have the same issue with Marcello Di Cintio as I did with Berberian. Is he some guy who wrote a book, an established Iranian literary figure, a well-known Italian scholar, or something else/in-between?
Under "Future threats", "In a 2004 report, it was listed as "the worst offender" globally for poor earthquake engineering." Which report and who issued it? Again, the importance/credibility of the source needs to be established.
Aside from what I mentioned earlier about the lead not covering material that is not present in the body, it is written that "Iran's building codes, renowned for performing poorly during earthquakes, were recently evaluated by multiple world organizations. Most hope that the Iranian government will implement a better quality of design, highlighting that Iran is among the most seismically active countries in the world" is not really supported by the references in the article - I only see one world organization and one American scholar discussing the issue in the body (and "recently" should not be used, as it is necessary to avoid statements that will date).

Overall I feel that this article would require a lot of work before it could meet the GA criteria, thus I am failing the article at this time. Also, I believe that a second review and a second pair of eyes would be very beneficial to this article, and with the GA Backlog Elimination drive in effect, I suspect that this article would get a quick review if it were to be renominated. Thank you for your work thus far. Once these concerns have been addressed, the article may be renominated. If you feel that this assessment was in error, you may take it to WP:GAR. Canadian Paul 01:47, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]