Talk:1992 Cape Mendocino earthquakes/GA1

GA Review[edit]

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

Reviewer: Caponer (talk · contribs) 11:27, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dawnseeker2000, I look forward to reviewing this article thoroughly in the coming days. Please let me know if you have any questions or concerns in the meantime. Thank you again for all your outstanding work! -- Caponer (talk) 11:27, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Caponer, I will be available to respond to requests as I am able to check WP intermittently throughout the day. I wanted to describe my style of putting articles together: What I do is paraphrase the sources and simply leave the citation at the end of each paragraph. That simply means that all of the content is covered by one of the paragraph-ending references. The sources that I typically use are very dense and this enable large volumes of text that can be generated using that style. Thanks for stopping by and saying hello, Dawnseeker2000 13:57, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
It is reasonably well written. a (prose, no copyvios, spelling and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): 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:
· · ·

Dawnseeker2000, I apologize for the prolonged review, but I wanted to inform you that I have finished a comprehensive review of your article! It looks good to go for Good Article status, but I have shared a few issues below that I need to be addressed before proceeding. Please let me know if you have any questions or concerns in the meantime. Thank you again for your extraordinary work! -- Caponer (talk) 11:48, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Lead

Wiki-link Petrolia, California in the first paragraph, and Scotia, California in the second paragraph. Done
I have no further comments regarding the lead, as I think sufficiently summarizes the entirety of the article's prose below.

Tectonic setting

In the first paragraph, fifty should probably written as 50. Done
In the first paragraph, mya should probably be wiki-linked to the myr article, just in case they are unaware of the term. Done
In the second paragraph, I'd suggest adding a comma after "North of the Mendocino Triple Junction". Done
I have no further comments regarding this section. You've done a beautiful job of illustrating the geologic history to provide a comprehensive background to the earthquake events.

Earthquakes

Cascadia subduction zone should be written consistently throughout the article's prose. I'd decide whether you want it capitalized throughout, or "subduction zone" in lower case throughout. Done
No further comments for this lead section--again, beautifully written.

Damage

It is not necessary to wiki-link Scotia in the first paragraph, as it is linked above. Done
Wiki-link Ferndale in this section as its the first usage within the text. Done
In the first paragraph, I'd add a comma after Fortuna. Done
Was the city's gymnasium destroyed, or the gym? Done
Wiki-link American Red Cross in the last paragraph. Done
Out of curiosity, who assessed the damage in the unincorporated communities of Weott and Carlotta? Since they did not have municipal governments of their own, did the county government or county services step in and assess the damage?

The Red Cross supplied the figures for the overall number of damaged or destroyed apartments, homes, and businesses for the whole county. O'brien cites the May 1 and May 3 issues of the Eureka Times-Standard for the losses at Ferndale, but no specific citation given for the paragraph that contains details about the damage in Eureka, Arcata, Weott, and Carlotta

No further comments for this section. This is a thorough write-up on the totality of damage caused by the quakes.

Strong motion

Side note: Are there any plans to draft an article on the California Strong Motion Instrumentation Program? I'm sure that would definitely make for a Good Article, too!

I have definitely thought about it. For a start, something might be added to the California Department of Conservation or California Geological Survey articles (parent agencies) about that program.

No further comments for this section.

Ground effects

For consistency's sake, I'd add internal commas to 1,700, 3,000, and 5,000. Done
No further comments for this section.

Tsunami

I suggested spelling out National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration in its first usage. Done
No further comments for this section.

Other events

No comments for this section.

Dawnseeker2000, I hereby pass this article to Good Article status! You have sufficiently addressed all my above questions, comments, and concerns, so it is my pleasure to pass this article. You have done a phenomenal job researching and writing this article, and I commend you on your continued contributions to Wikipedia! -- Caponer (talk) 15:18, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Response[edit]

Thanks for the very thorough review Caponer. Finding and fixing those minor inconsistencies and style issues are what's great about submitting articles for good article review. More eyes on the articles makes for overall improvements. Speaking of which, I should acknowledge an earlier review by another user that was also helpful for suggesting some things that improved the article. I have posted the suggested changes and even added a bit of missing information about damage in Petrolia. Dawnseeker2000 19:49, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]