Talk:1995 Aigio earthquake

Comments
I'll go through the text making mainly minor tweaks that you can reverts if you don't like my changes. More substantial comments I'll put here


 * What is the order of your sources? Alphabetic by first author is normal Jimfbleak - talk to me?  15:44, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Personally, I'm not a fan of linking to sites that don't give full content, it seems to be promoting a pay-to-view site.
 * I've added a few links, such as epicentre, plea check that other technical terms have links or explanations.
 * I don't think we link countries
 * You may be asked to defend your Further reading. Some editors take the view that if it's not used as a reference, it's superfluous
 * @Jimfbleak
 * I will go through the sources tonight and order them alphabetically as currently they are just by order of original usage.
 * I mean I am linking to either the doi or to where the doi points as I feel that would be the bet place to link. As these are research papers, few of them are free to read explicitly, so unless you want me to literally link to their sci-hub's I doubt much can be done on that front.


 * I understand that, but you really don't need a url link if you have a doi. I see that my most recent FA had refs with both though, so probably best to leave for now anyway Jimfbleak - talk to me?  15:42, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I will go through the article and check for wikilinks on tech terms tonight
 * Not sure what you mean by not linking countries. If you mean not wikilinking to them, that can be removed.


 * Yes, wikilinks Jimfbleak - talk to me?  15:42, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I believe I did that now. Not sure that it was quite what you were asking, but it is what I understood. SamBroGaming (talk) SamBroGaming (talk) 22:04, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
 * If people don't like my further reading and want to remove it, alright have at it. They have largely the same content as the other references, so they are not crucial to the article.
 * SamBroGaming (talk) 14:31, 14 October 2022 (UTC)


 * You shouldn't normally have any references or notes in the lead, it's a summary of the body of the text which should be fully referenced anyway.


 * Your text has a lot of technical detail, and if you are going to include that you must help your reader. For example, you have sentences like a dip angle of 50–60° with a strike of 100°, but dip and strike are nowhere linked or explained. Please check that readers aren't having to guess what your seismological terms might mean
 * In future threats, you have a bucket-load of references, eg The fault is composed of two main segments: an offshore and an onshore portion, and they extend for 8.621–12 km (5.357–7.456 mi) combined.[17][36][7][8][34] . Are five references really necessary to confirm a short sentence? It's unusual to see more than three at a time
 * up to 1,887 houses "up to" and an exact figure don't really work together
 * You have a long section on future threats, no mention in the lead, which looks a bit short anyway.


 * We normally archive web pages because they are liable to disappear or change. I'm not sure why you are archiving journal articles, which are stable, especially as in many cases you are not even archiving full text, just an abstract Jimfbleak - talk to me?  14:18, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

@Jimfbleak I have gone through all of your concerns and done as much as I can to fix them. I alphabetized the sources, unlinked countries, removed references from lead, explained technical terms, removed most instances of over referencing (or at least made it clearer which ref was used when), fixed the 1887 houses thing, and added future threat to the lead. The only remaining issues are the site linking in refs, the further reading, and the archived urls. With the site linking in the refs, you told me not to touch them for now so I haven't. The further reading is not crucial to the article, so while I haven't touched it, it being removed wouldn't be the biggest of deals. With the archive urls, I could also go through each ref and remove it for the ones where it's not necessary, however I am not sure that the archive urls being there actually takes away from the ref, so I feel it would be fine to leave them. Otherwise, I have tidied up the article. What else can I do to improve it to FA standards further? Thanks, SamBroGaming (talk) 01:03, 23 October 2022 (UTC)


 * I think you might as well take it to FAC. It is a a certainty that you will get comments on things I've missed, other editors' preferences and MoS things I've not picked up on. Even with my long experience at FAC and numerous re readings, I'm always astonished by how many things I get picked up on. FAC will also help to see if there is a view on links and such like. You will have to be prepared to grit your teeth and deal with sometimes contradictory requirements. I don't know if you review at FAC, but it's a good idea to do so if you have an active FAC yourself, since there is an element of "you scraatch my back..." which will help you to get reviewers. Let me know when you nominate, and good luck Jimfbleak - talk to me?  09:05, 23 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Alright, thank you for the advice! In my peer review, I was told to start reviewing FACs to familiarize myself with the process, as well as to familiarize reviewers with me, so I plan to do that a little before putting this up for FAC. I appreciate the help, so thank you very much. Thanks, SamBroGaming (talk) 18:18, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

Changes to "Tectonic setting" and "Future threat" sections
I've made some changes to these two sections.

The tectonic setting for the Gulf of Corinth Rift is complicated by two things. Firstly, only a relatively small group of geoscientists refer to an Aegean Sea Plate, so most sources don't even mention it, let alone the location or nature of the boundaries, so probably best not to get into too much detail about that. We know that the whole area is currently affected by extensional tectonics, which is probably enough. Secondly, the significance of the topographic depressions that make up the Hellenic Trench is debated, do they represent the expression of the Hellenic subduction zone at the Earth's surface (as suggested by Xavier Le Pichon in 1979) or are they just structures within the forearc (as suggested by Le Pichon in 1982). It all depends on your view of the nature of the Mediterranean Ridge, which lies to the south of the trench(es) - if you accept it as an accretionary complex, then only the second model can be true. In fact I have been unable to find any research in the last forty years that suggests that this is not the origin of the Mediterranean Ridge. To make our lives difficult, however, the first model of the trenches representing the surface expression of the subduction zone still turn up regularly in papers (e.g. here), which unhelpfully just ignore the Mediterranean Ridge issue. See also the discussion at Talk:Hellenic subduction zone, which goes into more detail.

I changed "Future threat" to "Future seismic hazard", as that is generally how it's referred to. The Gulf of Corinth Rift is not itself a divergent boundary, nor is it part of one, just an expression of the extension going on across the Aegean.

I don't find the map particularly helpful and I'm a little concerned about copyright issues, but I will check that as soon as I can. Mikenorton (talk) 20:15, 7 December 2022 (UTC)


 * I've replaced the map, although not for any copyright issues. The new map shows topography and the names of the faults are now clear. I've also added the location of the epicentre and a scale. Mikenorton (talk) 21:59, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

Image sizes
I don't understand why are the images under Geology and Future hazards are so absurdly huge. I understand in the FA review this was to address the small text within the images to make reading easier. But this creates an ugly MOS:SANDWICH effect. Dora the Axe-plorer (explore) 11:53, 3 August 2023 (UTC)