Talk:Engadine Line/GA1

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

Reviewer: Bryanrutherford0 (talk · contribs) 17:40, 25 October 2020 (UTC)


 * GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
 * The article complies with all the required section of MoS. In my opinion it really ought to use Template:Infobox fault, but it's not required for GA. The lead should mention that the Engadine Line is a piece of the Periadriatic Fault System (already present and cited in the body). The usage "20–4 kilometres" in the lead seems strange to me; surely it's typical in a range of values to give the lesser value first? Is there some strong reason to reverse the normal convention here? The prose repeatedly includes constructions like "0.5–9 kilometres (0.3–5.6 mi) long" as adjectival phrases, and it seems to me that this could be said in a less stilted way, e.g. rather than "represented by 0.5–9 kilometres (0.3–5.6 mi) long northeast-trending fault segments" we could say something like "represented by northeast-trending fault segments running for 0.5–9 kilometres (0.3–5.6 mi)" or "represented by northeast-trending fault segments of 0.5–9 kilometres (0.3–5.6 mi)" or even just "represented by northeast-trending fault segments 0.5–9 kilometres (0.3–5.6 mi) long". In the section "Seismicity" the template produces the tooltip "Unknown mag. scale"; that should be cleaned up.
 * In "Geology" it currently says that "the names 'Nassereith-Silz fault' and 'Scuols-Vils fault' are used in the context of the Engadine Line". This needs to be more clear. Are these names used to refer to the Engadine Line, or are they used to refer to some other fault in the context of the Engadine Line? The "Geomorphology" section needs a more logical flow, perhaps following the fault line in a consistent direction from one end to the other? As it is, some paragraphs seems to be random assortments of factoids with no unifying theme. For example, the second paragraph seems to want to be about the Inn River and its relationship to the Line, but then it also includes other seemingly unrelated material about "Scarl-Campo rock units", etc. In "Geologic history", what is "the Sarmatium"? All I can find is a genus of crabs. Should that be "the Sarmatian"? In "Neotectonics", is it typical in English to use the German plural "sackungen" rather than some sort of English plural form ("sackungs")? In "Seismicity", it seems to me that "It is possible, but unproven, that the Engadine Line may generate earthquakes" should probably be the first sentence in the section, no? The sentence "In the Ötz River valley in Austria, the Engadine Line and the Inntal fault show increased earthquake activity" seems odd, given that nowhere in this article is it said that the Engadine Line extends into the Ötz valley. Is this said under the assumption that the Inntal fault is in fact the continuation of the Engadine Line? Earlier that is presented as merely "probable" rather than established.
 * Did the first, but I don't think the second works as there are two dimensional statements there. I can't tell from https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/0040195179901768 what the magnitude scale in question is. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:43, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Apparently it's considered acceptable to use "magnitudes" on no particular scale when the figure doesn't need to be very precise. Never mind about that, then! Another good option for smoothing the length descriptors would be using the adjective-phrase option in the Convert template to get something hyphenated, like "represented by 0.5–9-kilometre (0.3–5.6 mi) northeast-trending fault segments". -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 18:42, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
 * The Engadine Line is only sometimes considered part of the Periadriatic Line, so I wouldn't be comfortable to have it as unqualified assertion in the lead. The source was not terribly clear on what the magnitudes refer to. The geomorphology section actually "flows" from the northeastern sector to the southwestern one. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 19:37, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
 * It's fine if the lead says that the line is "sometimes considered to be" part of the Periadriatic system, or however you think would be accurate to phrase it. In "Geomorphology" it seems counterintuitive to me to move from downhill to uphill, but that's fine; the flow would probably be more clear if I were more familiar with the exact locations of the various villages and landmarks mentioned (another reason why the article would be very much improved by the addition of a map). To help the non-expert reader, let's clarify at the beginning of the fourth paragraph of that section that the Engadine Line continues as the Gruf Line to the southwest; let's also clarify here that only some believe that the Gruf Line is a continuation of the Engadine Line (as stated later in the same paragraph).
 * Did the Sarmatian and earthquake changes. The Ötz valley however passes close to the EL. If my understanding is correct, the Engadine Line->Gruf Line connection is less that there is controversy and more that only recently has a connection been definitively established. A map would be fine but the only one I can find is File:Karte Kreis Oberengadin 2016.png unless you want to construct one like Lascar (volcano). Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 19:06, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
 * If that's the case (regarding the connection between the Engadine and Gruf lines), then I guess I'm satisfied there. If it's that earthquakes felt in the Ötz valley may have originated in the EL (which is not in the Ötz valley), then please clarify that in the prose. The Kreis Oberengadin map is great, if only it extended to the entire length of the EL! A coordinate map like the one in Lascar (volcano) would be much better than nothing, if it could show the relative locations of all the towns mentioned in "Geography". -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 17:00, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):  d (copyvio and plagiarism):
 * The article has a reference list of citations and a list of sources. In the source "MATTMÜLLER" there is a syntax error "Check |issn= value" that should be addressed. I'm not seeing any signs of plagiarism from online English-language sources in the Earwig tool. It would be better to rewrite various ALL-CAPS names and titles in the sources, but it isn't required. Some of the academic sources are paywalled, so I'll have to AGF on those; they seem generally to be on related topics, at least, and in many cases the abstracts support the cited material.
 * I don't get it. The ISSN exactly matches the source. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:43, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Hmm, and the checksum digit seems correct, based on my reading of the ISSN logic. Not sure why that error message is appearing... -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 18:42, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Looks like another user got it; I guess the template wanted a hyphen rather than an en dash. -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 16:23, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
 * In "Geomorphology" the text says that "the Engadine Line separates the Silvretta covers from the Engadine Window", but that doesn't appear to be true in Schlüchter et al.'s Figure 17.2 map. What am I missing?
 * Die östliche Begrenzung der Silvrettadecke zum Engardiner Fenster wird durch die sinistrale Engadiner Störung markiert. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 19:37, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
 * And yet, the map I indicated and all the others I've found appear to show the Engadine Line passing to the southeast of both the block marked "Silvretta" and the zone marked "Engadine (tectonic) window". How does this claim fit together with the maps? -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 16:23, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I dunno, really. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 19:06, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * The article seems to me to cover all the major aspects of an active geological formation (its location, shape and extent, the theorized history of its formation, and contemporary seismic and hydrothermal activity). I don't see any portions that seem off-topic.
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * The article shows no sign of e.g. exaggerating the fault's importance. I can't see that it unfairly privileges one scientific theory about the geology of the line over another, though I'm not deeply familiar with any controversy that might exist.
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars, etc.:
 * The article is stable and shows no sign of edit wars.
 * 1) It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * The sole image has a good license. Reading its caption, I'm not sure I understand the relationship of this photograph to the Engadine Line; is it saying that (somewhere outside the image) the fault deflects the river (a piece of which appears in the lower left of the image)? A map would be extremely helpful here, speaking as a reader not familiar with the geography or geology of eastern Switzerland. In a brief search I turned up this, which doesn't appear to be free, but something along those lines would add a lot to the article. Likewise for some sort of photograph of the stone layers, where the fault is apparently visibly exposed "at Maloja and at Stragliavita close to Zernez"?
 * The fault apparently passes somewhere within view of the image, but it's not clearly recognizable - but the path of the river, from right to left, is forced by the faulting which has diverted the river. It's the closest image on which one can recognize any aspect of faulting. I agree that a map would be helpful but none of these I found is freely licensed. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:43, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Let's keep looking, because this photograph, though pretty, doesn't show anything to do with a fault line to the eye of a non-geologist. You could perhaps use something in the Commons Category Geological maps of the Alps? -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 16:23, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Maps showing the line in some fashion are File:Alps geology map en.jpg, File:Schema tettonico delle Alpi.jpg and indirectly File:Geologische Karte des Engadiner Fensters.png. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 19:06, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Schema tettonico is excellent! Better if it were in English, but maybe someone will translate it at some point; for now, it would definitely help to have that map, with a caption clarifying that the Engadine Line appears near the center, labeled "L.E.". It could even go in an infobox... -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 17:00, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
 * With two maps added, I'm satisfied that this article has an adequate level of illustration to help a non-Swiss reader get a sense of the relative positions, though a photograph of the visible fault itself would still add greatly. Hopefully someone will translate that tectonic map into English at some point! -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 03:47, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * A few more prose issues, and it would really, really help to have some maps. Everything else appears to be in order! My notes are finished, so I'm putting this on hold. -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 17:00, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Regarding that contested claim on the Ötztal Valley, In the surroundings of the excursion area the NE-trending Inntal and Engadin Line show increased earthquake activity so I am not sure how far away the "surroundings" extend. I've added the two images. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 21:10, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
 * There are just a couple of prose issues outstanding: the awkward phrasing around the lengths of fault segments, the unclear sentence mentioning a couple of other fault names, clarification that the Gruf Line extends to the southwest of the Engadine Line, and clarification if we're saying that earthquakes felt in the Ötz valley are thought to have originated at the Engadine Line. The other criteria are met to my satisfaction already. -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 20:05, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Got most of these, but I think the Gruf Line point is clear enough and I am not sure what the "fault segments" refers to. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 20:42, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Alright, I made the last small change. This is approved for GA. Good work! -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 18:43, 11 November 2020 (UTC)