Talk:2014 Orkney earthquake/GA1

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

Reviewer: Mike Christie (talk · contribs) 17:53, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

I'll review this. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 17:53, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

-- I'll wait to review the sources for paraphrasing until some of the above issues are addressed. I'll place this on hold in the meantime. I may also post a note at WP:EARTHQUAKE asking about sources. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 18:59, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I was surprised at the sequence of sections -- I would have expected to see the geological background and causes of the earthquake first, then a description of the quake itself, then the aftermath and relief efforts. Any particular reason you did it this way?  I don't think I'd fail GA for this, but it doesn't seem the most logical organization to me.
 * The information in the lead should all appear in the body too -- the lead is a summary as well as an introduction. There's nothing in the body that gives the time, date and intensity of the quake, for example.
 * "The United States Geological Survey (USGS) estimate a focal depth of 5.0 km (3.1 mi)": suggest "estimated", as we're using past tense in the surrounding sentences.
 * "predominantly vulnerable building construction": not sure what this means. Do you mean that much of the building stock in the area was vulnerable to earthquakes, or used substandard construction techniques?  I think it would help to be more specific.
 * "5 out of the 17 companies surveyed would reject insurance claims related to the earthquake if it was proven to be mining-related": this is the first hint that the earthquake might be considered to be mining-related, and there's no explanation of what that could mean. If you don't reorder the sections as I suggested above, you do need to add something explanatory here.
 * You have three one-sentence paragraphs in the "Response" section; can you find a way to merge these with the surrounding material?
 * The section on whether it was mining-related is a bit listy; it quotes several experts, one after the other. Do you have any sources that speak generally about whether earthquakes can be caused by mining activity?  Assuming that there's a consensus that this does indeed happen, I think it would be better to structure this as (a) geologists agree that mining can cause earthquakes; (b) possibly include an example of earthquake that everyone agrees was caused by mining; (c) summarize agreement/disagreement for this earthquake, letting the reader know what the majority opinion was (it sounds like most think it's mining-related); (d) give specific quotes for and against.
 * A possible source for some of the points I talk about above is here. It seems to give information that would imply you can remove some of the quotes; e.g. the quotes about the earthquake not being mining-related because of the depth.
 * Related to the points above is the general quality of the sources used. There's nothing wrong with using news sources for quotes, but it's difficult to extract a summarizable scientific position from those sources.  I think that, at least for the seismic context and the assessment of the cause and description of the quake, there need to be some higher quality sources.
 * Are there any images that could be used -- either of Orkney itself or the mine in question, or the damage caused?
 * FYI, I posted a note to WT:EARTHQUAKE asking about the sources. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:04, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't know that this event will be studied or that any journal articles will be written, but those things take some time, so it might be too soon for GAN. They're not absolutely necessary, of course, but they sure can make for compelling WP articles. We'll have to wait and see if anything is published on it. Could get lucky; sometimes there's even freely-accessible papers. Dawnseeker2000   02:49, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

I created this article so I'll be watching this. was the expander and nominator so pinging her in case she isn't aware of this. Nathan121212 (talk) 06:09, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your review. I (and Nathan) have tried to address the issues you have raised. I am not aware of any planned scientific studies or better sources available. Mining Weekly is a decent specialist source with named journalists versus websites such as News24 which is a general news distributor. Orkney is a remote location and I was not able to obtain any free images related to the earthquake unfortunately. I have added the only free image I can find of the town. Regarding the causes section, I am constrained by the available sources and the need to maintain NPOV and avoid OR/SYN. The majority opinion is not a clear cut one or the other, both factors (mining and natural faults) play a role. Helen Online  16:24, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Agreed; I asked for other opinions and they said the same thing. I think everything looks good now, so I'm passing the article. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 03:22, 8 January 2015 (UTC)