Talk:1892 Vacaville–Winters earthquakes/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

Reviewer: Editoneer (talk · contribs) 06:10, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Well-written, neutrality, broadness, stability

 * What is surface faulting? ✅ I replaced the text "surface faulting" with "evidence of fault movement on the surface of the ground".
 * Tectonic setting ---> Geology ❌ It's preferrable to use tectonic setting here. Geology is a broad term and not nearly as specific.
 * strike-slip, can you explain shortly what a strike-slip system means? ✅ 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? ✅ 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? ❌ 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? ✅ 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? ✅ 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. ✅ 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.
 * Nobody lives in those areas that injuries wasn't notable enough to be a report on? ✅ None of the newspaper articles or earthquake catalogs mention any injuries.
 * and was felt over roughly the same geographical area. Doesn't an earthquake is naturally felt over the geographical area? Especially of high intensity? ✅ 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? ✅ 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? ✅ 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. ✅ I've used the word "inspected"
 * How did they identify at which mercalli scale a earthquake is if is the 19th century? ✅ Our article for the Modified Mercalli intensity scale explains that because it's a non-instrumental scale, the different classes can be applied to historical events. This concept is one of the scale's strong points.
 * T. Toppozada Are they known by the "T" abbreviation in their name or can you just write their full name? ✅
 * fissures, what is a fissure? ✅ 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. ✅ I've used the convert template in two locations
 * lineaments, can this have a more simple term or be explained? ✅ 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? ✅ 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. 🤣 ✅ 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

Verifiability

 * [1] Can you tell me what it says from there that matches the content of the article? Are you talking about Stover, C. W.; Coffman, J. L. (1993)?
 * Yes. Editoneer (talk) 18:05, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure about this line of questioning. If you're wanting to verify that what I'm claiming is actually in the source, here are links for the pages that I've cited.


 * p. 74
 * p. 110
 * p. 111
 * If that is not satisfactory can you please explain what it is that you're looking for? Dawnseeker2000  19:05, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Media

 * Are there photos of the damages or the findings? And where is that isoseismal map mentioned? ✅ No, there are no photos that we can use for the article. I was hoping that there might be an isoseismal map to use, but none exist either. There are three that I used for the development of the article. Two are in Preparation of isoseismal maps and summaries of reported effects for pre-1900 California earthquakes and the other is in Vacaville–Winters earthquakes . . . 1892: Solano and Yolo counties on page 77.

Good job and good luck. Editoneer (talk) 07:59, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much for the detailed feedback. Dawnseeker2000  08:11, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
 * , will you do the job? Editoneer (talk) 18:02, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

There is no rush. Dawnseeker2000 18:12, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
 * There is, unless you are busy with something else, basically. Editoneer (talk) 18:17, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
 * You can do this! You have 8 problems to be addressed and then I can ask for that second opinion and catch that break.... if you want a break to begin with. Editoneer (talk) 18:41, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Alright I think it's ready for a review.  Dawnseeker2000  19:11, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you for informing me, I'll put the article in second opinion. I'll see you in 2 months as that's how much time I believe another person will come to review the article again, thank you for existing. Editoneer (talk) 19:15, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that. Dawnseeker2000  19:52, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
 * What's this? Maybe somewhat precipitant, but I am not following what has happened here? Aircorn (talk) 07:42, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Hello Aircorn, Editoneer completed a review of the article to the best of his ability in March of this year. He did a fine job, but English is a second language for him, and so he opted to have someone come in and verify that the article is indeed worthy of GA status. Dawnseeker2000  18:28, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Okay. I can look it over if you want. Aircorn (talk) 18:35, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Greetings! If you need me, don't forget to ping, thank you. Editoneer (talk) 07:00, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

Second opinion

 * Can we link strike slip. I am not sure what is best Transform fault, Strike-slip tectonics or Strike-slip. Aircorn (talk) 18:52, 13 May 2021 (UTC) Thanks, I added a new sentence to the lead (so that we don't have to link strike slip next to San Andreas Fault – WP:SEAOFBLUE). The new sentence augments the existing lead material, which is based on sourced factors in the infobox.
 * The section is titled earquakes, but doesn't specify how many earthquakes occurred. There is also no date or time for the earthquakes. Aircorn (talk) 18:52, 13 May 2021 (UTC)  I added the two dates that the mainshocks occurred. None of the catalogs show the time of day.
 * further clarified that Vacaville was at the center of the destruction It 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.
 * Main issue is that there is information in the lead not in the body - i.e. dates mentioned above, damage costs (which should be cited), death (which is pretty important) etc. Aircorn (talk) 18:52, 13 May 2021 (UTC) Earthquake articles rely on parametric catalogs for much of the infobox, so that is where we typically source the many figures (they also don't read well in prose). Much of these parameters are also what can make an event notable, so they are presented in the lead.
 * This is still an issue for me. In theory the lead and infobox just summarise the article. The lead says 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)
 * , have you reviewed an earthquake article before, or is this your first? Dawnseeker2000  21:47, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I have reviewed hundreds of articles on a wide range of topics. Aircorn (talk) 13:29, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
 * @Dawnseeker2000: I agree that it is sometimes repetitive to mention all the numbers from the infobox in the body, but Aircorn is right that text in the lede should be cited in the body. Negatives are quite difficult to source (no reports), so it may be better to leave it out altogether. I don't think it's relevant whether Aircorn has reviewed an earthquake article before.
 * On a procedural note, @Aircorn: if you answer a second opinion, please put the article back on review, so that others know there is no outstanding request :). FemkeMilene (talk) 12:11, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Sorry I am not aware of any procedure around this. My understanding is that it is up to the nominator as to when they want to stop receiving second opinions and they can use them as they wish. Aircorn (talk) 13:29, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
 * No worries, see WP:GAN/I. The initial reviewer is the one asking for a second opinion, not the nominator. The reviewer, User:Editoneer has been quite inactive, so maybe either of us can take over as the 'official reviewer' if we don't hear back within say a week.
 * Sorry meant reviewer. I did not know that instruction, thanks. I am happy for this to pass if the last issue is sorted out. Air<b style="color: green;">corn</b> (talk) 20:42, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Do not worry, I am here, I wanted to know if you wrapped things around so I can see whenever this article is good to go! Editoneer (talk) 04:53, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
 * @Dawnseeker: are you planning to answer the last remaining issue soon? FemkeMilene (talk) 16:07, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
 * @Dawnseeker: are you planning to answer the last remaining issue soon? FemkeMilene (talk) 16:07, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

Interlude about user conduct
Hello I have a draft response started and I will post that in the next few days. Dawnseeker2000 02:42, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Oh wow, this review is quite the adventure. Editoneer (talk) 10:49, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks Editioner, I appreciate you sticking around to follow along and your willingness to continue to help. Our dialogue was good and that resulted in improvements to the article. Our interactions were probably a textbook example of how a review should go. I have some words about the second opinion editor's style of reviewing. I guess it would be fair to say that it was characterized by polarized thinking a lack of dialogue. This is probably going to ruffle some feathers, but that is not the intention. I asked a question of him in order to gain a better understanding of their experience with earthquake articles with the intent of helping them understand why some things are the way they are in this space. But as everyone can see, they gave me the silent treatment by not answering the question. From my perspective, that shows a lack of interest in collaborating and learning and also shows a real inability to see in shades of grey.That's important. There's really quite a bit of nuance within this website and to turn down an opportunity to learn about some of that is concerning. I am not going to come down too hard on that editor because that isn't really what is best for everyone involved here, including those that may read this down the road. Aircorn, I hope that you can find some peace with whatever may be ailing you. I'm unwilling to continue the review with that editor because I came here to write articles and not necessarily deal with narcissistic abuse. I know someone's going to invoke "comment on the content not on the contributor" but this is something that has to be said. So just to be super clear, and in light of what I've already said, do I think whether an editor is new in reviewing a specific category in the good articles space is relevant? Yes. That person may need some information (help) first.Far too often there are a lack of thorough explanations around here. Also, if an editor approaches issues here on WP as black-and-white with no gray area, I see that as potentially falling short of ideal because this whole website is about "ifs, ands,  and buts".  Dawnseeker2000  20:26, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Wow. Just wow. This is why there is such a large backlog at GAN. If Editoneer wants to pass this that is up to them, but it is a textbook fail of 1B. I am perfectly fine BTW, thanks for your concern. Air<b style="color: green;">corn</b> (talk) 22:30, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Dawnseeker: I'm sorry this GA trip has been so eventful. I propose I'll take over if Editioneer is still in need of a second opinion. (FYI, I have reviewed Jo-Jo's FAs in this area before, which I did not feel I needed specialist knowledge for)
 * I think the initial tension was a textbook case of miscommunication via a text-based medium: "have you reviewed an earthquake article before, or is this your first?" can be an offer for help, but can equally be interpreted as a criticism of Aircorns competence. I think that explains the defensive answer (which, tbf, could have been friendlier). Would you be willing to strike 'whatever may be ailing you' above, as I believe it to be an escalation, where de-escalation is needed.
 * We're very near the green tick, imo just one hurdle to go, so I hope we can focus on that. FemkeMilene (talk) 16:24, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
 * No miscommunication here. The above rant makes it clear what the intention of "have you reviewed an earthquake article before, or is this your first?". Not too mention a just received sarcastic thank you. Striking a comment means little when when someone is asking you too. We are all volunteers here, and even if the comment was genuine I am under no obligation to answer it and not doing so is not "narcissistic abuse". So just to make it clear I want no more thank yous or other pings from Dawnseeker. Air<b style="color: green;">corn</b> (talk) 02:59, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Aircorn, I'd like you to leave, please. Your demeanor and comments haven't been helpful. Dawnseeker2000  07:09, 30 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)
 * , I'm well within my right to take care of myself. If something is unpleasant one can remove the unpleasantness. That is what I've done here. Dawnseeker2000  07:46, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

Continuation of review
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)
 * I apologize if my response is not something to hear, but let's focus on the green tick that we are so close approaching. "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 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.
 * Milene and Aircorn are referring to this part of the guideline~ But I believe that this significant information should not be mentioned once again in the body because it's already referenced in the infobox itself because I believe this significant information refers to long information that can not be covered by the infobox itself without degrading its quality., 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)
 * Allow me to respond instead. My objection is 2c (no original research). Because we are dealing with a citationless lede (which you often see in quality articles), not following 1b leads to an unsourced statement. I do agree there is some leeway with respect to criterion 1b, but not so much with 2c.
 * Feel free to ignore me and award the GA. You're boss. FemkeMilene (talk) 17:56, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I disagree. The infobox is not a substitute for mentioning in the body. From Manual of Style/Infoboxes 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. Air<b style="color: green;">corn</b> (talk) 03:10, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Very well, thank you. Yes, I can close the review, but I don't think I should when there's still a problem remaining, thank you!, I apologize if my sudden change of mind is inconvenient, are you able to put the statements in question inside the body? Editoneer (talk) 04:38, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Well, what I'd really like to do is back up a bit with this review. I don't feel like my feet are on the ground with it. Will post more specifics tomorrow. Dawnseeker2000 07:50, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Okay! See ya then. Editoneer (talk) 08:17, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

Starting with something easy
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 in light of what the other editor mentioned about it? Dawnseeker2000 07:50, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I can't seem to comprehend what you are referring to. You're asking me if mentioning the type of earthquake listing appropriately is okay than what Aircorn have said? The issue here appears that the body itself doesn't have that information but the lead has it. Editoneer (talk) 08:37, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
 * No, no. no. I want to give the infobox/body issue a rest for a little bit and start with something else that has been mentioned (and is related to the infobox/body/lead situation). You mentioned early on in your 8th bulleted item "Nobody lives in those areas that injuries wasn't notable enough to be a report on?" and I responded by adding some text to the lead " The sentence went from:
 * This: "While the total damage was estimated at between $225,000–250,000, one person was killed, but there are no reports on how many people may have been injured."
 * To this: "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."
 * The question is do you feel like the text that I added is an improvement or does it contribute to a problem? Dawnseeker2000  08:19, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I see what you're referring to, I'd say it's an improvement. Editoneer (talk) 08:55, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Um, hello? Editoneer (talk) 04:25, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I'm here. Been resting after a long work week (and thinking about which direction to go with this). Dawnseeker2000  04:45, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Alright, how about this: can we start talking about which steps exactly need to be taken to get this to pass? I am wanting to clarify by talking and asking questions. Dawnseeker2000  05:22, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Very well, we copy 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)
 * Alright, let's pause here for a moment. This is the text that we just spoke about, right? Again, just to make sure we are on the same page: You had asked ""Nobody lives in those areas that injuries wasn't notable enough to be a report on?". I thought, yeah, we could definitely clarify that the earthquake catalogs did not mention injuries", so I added the text quoted above to the lead.Now the issue is that very same text. You're asking if we can copy it to the body? Why don't I just remove it? I think that would satisfy you, me, and another editor that I think had an issue with it. Something about "not being able to prove a negative" or something similar. Dawnseeker2000  07:45, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I removed the text . Skim over the article again and let me know what you'd like to work on next. Dawnseeker2000  07:47, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I moved through that rather quickly didn't I? I also think I did not clearly state what I was truly thinking about to this: I thought it was odd that I should be making one fix that then required another fix in the body and it seemed simpler last night for me to just remove it rather than keep making cascading changes like that. Dawnseeker2000  16:07, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I offended you, and I know why. I did not consult you before removing that text altogether. Shall I reinstate a modified version (summary style) of it to the lead and use the text we had for the body? Dawnseeker2000  07:47, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I apologise, I'm experiencing personal difficulties, Milene will take over. Editoneer (talk) 10:41, 10 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)