Talk:1995 Gulf of Aqaba earthquake/GA1

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

Reviewer: Dr. Blofeld (talk · contribs) 11:14, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Can you add Eilat and Nuweiba cities to the map, I think it would be useful given what is said in the text. ✅ (I thought the area near the bullseye would be too crowded with those cities marked, but it actually looks fine) Dawnseeker2000   18:43, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Infobox map


 * Tectonic setting


 * "Although there is much that is not known about the DST, it is accepted that its transform motion began around 12—18 million years ago" -citation needed.
 * The sentence, and the bulk of that paragraph, is based on ref #2. The article, for the most part, uses paragraph citations. In the case of this paragraph (and that sentence), everything up to and including the sentence "Geologist A. M. Quennell, who is credited with first recognizing the movement along the fault in 1958, estimated the total displacement to be 107 kilometers (66 mi) while a similar study that included more regional influences resulted in an estimated slip of 100 kilometers" is covered by ref #2 and the last sentence is covered by ref #6. Two of the article's eleven paragraphs have multiple citations, the rest are based one reference only and I've followed that approach throughout. Is it OK to use the "for verification, please see the nearest ref" style? Dawnseeker2000   18:43, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
 * That's OK, but generally I like facts to be directly sourced. Given that some paragraphs use multiple sources on wikipedia generally I find the reference at end of paragraph to not really help readers verify the information given in sentences before it, it isn't always obvious to check the bottom citation for a different sentence. And I think making it as easy as possible for any reader to instantly verify given facts is very important on wikipedia. But in fairness most of the sentences in the article are not figures and many of them don't need citations. ♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld  21:10, 11 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Stress
 * "The average background seismicity was .5 to 1 events per day preceding November 22, and during the swarm 21 small earthquakes with a peak magnitude of (Md = 3.7) were recorded in three and a half hours." -citation needed to verify data.
 * This whole paragraph is based on ref #10. Will wait on an answer from the question above. Dawnseeker2000   19:16, 11 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Damage
 * Delink Saudi Arabia ✅ Dawnseeker2000   18:43, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Past events
 * "The seismologists who work with historical events gather macroseismic data from written records from cities that may not have been anywhere near the epicentral area. " Seems a bit generalized, I'd rather you documented what happened specific to this case in the past tense.
 * I've reread the paragraph and the source material to get back up to speed (this was written last summer). That whole paragraph summarizes page 1027 (section "Background Seismicity of the Gulf of Aqaba") is explaining the difficulty seismologists have reconstructing earthquake history in that area due to a low population. The text wanders from the specifics of the 1995 event to give a broader perspective of how the work there presents challenges. It's a "History" section of sorts and they're talking about historical events and I included this in the article to give the reader that understanding. Dawnseeker2000   20:02, 11 August 2013 (UTC)


 * "but a primary characteristic of the activity there are the multiple sequences of earthquake swarms." Reword as "but a primary characteristic of the activity is that there are multiple sequences of earthquake swarms." ✅ (Much better)  Dawnseeker2000   18:47, 11 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Aftermath
 * Can you add an actual external coordinate link like in Llantwit Major landmarks for near 28°35' N and 29°05' N ?
 * This is a range of latitude and not a full coordinate system, so unable to add even a coord to the article, let alone the GeoGroup template. I did find that sentence a bit awkward as I was reading it and have rearranged it a bit. Dawnseeker2000   19:15, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

My bad, I missed that and read it as full coordinates.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld  21:10, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria


 * 1) Is it reasonably well written?
 * A. Prose quality:
 * B. MoS compliance:
 * 1) Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
 * A. References to sources:
 * B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
 * C. No original research:
 * 1) Is it broad in its coverage?
 * A. Major aspects:
 * B. Focused:
 * 1) Is it neutral?
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * No edit wars, etc:
 * 1) Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
 * A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
 * B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:

As sound as a pound, good job.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld  21:20, 11 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks much! Dawnseeker2000   21:49, 11 August 2013 (UTC)