Talk:Seattle Fault/GA2

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

Reviewer: Racepacket (talk) 02:11, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria


 * 1) Is it reasonably well written?
 * A. Prose quality:
 * B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
 * 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:
 * What monitoring is in place to track activity on the Seattle Fault? What institution is monitoring seismic activity along the fault?
 * 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:
 * 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:
 * B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * Pass or Fail:

Do you have any views on the suggestions from the first good article review?


 * 1. Thank you for the review. I have made most of the changes suggested, with the following exceptions.  "I-90" is not wikilinked because the reference here is as a local topographic feature, which the Interstate 90 article does not illustrate or enhance.  Nor "West Seattle"; I have wikilinked to the more specific Alki Point and Fauntleroy locations.  Regarding the structure of that sentence: making "Seattle Uplift" the subject makes it temporarily more prominent than the SF, which confuses the focus; SF should be the subject. If the structure seems to contorted, perhaps another forumulation can be found.


 * 2. Citations: Those without page numbers refer to the whole article, not to any particular page or section.  As to the reliability of sources: all of these are high quality, reliable, reputable sources, and I believe appropriate for the use.  So I don't understand what the question here is.


 * 3. The question re monitoring suggests a misunderstanding of the nature of seismological monitoring. There is no special monitoring of this fault (or any other in the region), nor any point in doing so.  There is a regional network of seismological monitoring (which the Puget Sound faults article links to), but this has no specific relevancy to this fault.
 * The reader gets the impression that this is a potentially dangerous fault. It leaves the question in the reader's mind, is anyone watching it. The answer may be that it is being monitored along with the rest of the Puget Sound fault system. Please consider adding such a sentence to the article. If there is more detailed data that would be fine as well, e.g., "The University X geology department routinely monitors all faults in the Puget Sound fault system and detect seismic activity every month..." or whatever. Racepacket (talk) 02:31, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I think I see where you are coming from with this, and for sure this is a potentially very destructive fault. And, yes, there is monitoring, but it is not like there is a list of faults which are being watched in case they catch fire or something.  Earthquakes are largely unpredictable; aside from general expectations of a liklihood of a quake of some size there is nothing to watch for.  The monitoring is mainly to collect data for scientific analysis, with a hope to clarifying fault structure and dynamics across the entire region.  They are not monitoring "faults", they are monitoring seismic activity, where ever it occurs.


 * In a review of a prior (and shorter) version of this article there was a comment that the number of citations in GeoRef might support a longer article. That work is pretty technical, so while it could support a deeper treatment (with more explanation), I don't think there is much scope for a broader treatment.  Except in regard to other faults in the region, but that is more suitably covered in the Puget Sound faults article.


 * 4. There is a problem with one of the images (got overlooked); that is being worked on. On the Cadillac Hotel image, I don't understand this comment regarding this "29 January 2010" date, nor where this date comes from; it certainly does not occur in the article.
 * The date is 2001 now. Racepacket (talk) 02:31, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
 * So no issue? For sure I do not see (nor have seen) that date anywhere here.


 * There is another question I would raise: should the lead sentence be augmented with something like "which present serious earthquake hazard to the region"? I am rather ambivalent about that, a push either way would be welcome. - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:29, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I would leave it out, but that is a matter of personal opinion. Racepacket (talk) 02:38, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Okay! Part of me thinks it should go in, but I couldn't convince myself.  :-)
 * - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:19, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I trust you to follow through on the image or remove it. Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia and another good article. Racepacket (talk) 00:05, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the review. I have gotten permission for the image, we're just waiting for OTRS to process it.  Any Day Now.  (Sort of like earthquakes!)  - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 00:41, 19 March 2011 (UTC)