Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/2002 Bou'in-Zahra earthquake


 * The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by User:SandyGeorgia 22:29, 6 September 2008.

2002 Bou'in-Zahra earthquake

 * Nominator: Editorofthewiki (talk), -- Lord    Sunday  
 * previous FAC (00:49, 15 July 2008)

The previous FAC raised concerns about the article's prose. I think that has been adressed via a peer review. While this is short, it's quite comprehensive, and I think it fulfils the FAC criteria. --I'm an Editorofthewiki[citation needed] 14:11, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Weak Support as co-nominator - Prose concerns have been adressed, but the article is still short. However, I'll co-nom again since I hjelped quite a bit with this article last time. This time I feel that there is a chance the article will pass, but I would have liked to dedicate more time to it. -- Meld    shal    42?   15:15, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Comments
 * What makes http://www.iranmania.com/news/ArticleView/Default.asp?NewsCode=10815&NewsKind=CurrentAffairs&ArchiveNews=Yes a reliable source? I see it's got a (AFP) code at the byline, is that the French News Agency? Maybe you can find the same story in a newspaper?
 * I believe that the Iran News (their official newspaper-type paper) runs IranMania. But I think we could find it in a news article, let me check. -- Lord    Sunday   15:14, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I am now sure that the source is reliable, as USGS uses it. I have also added another asource from iranmania. -- Lord    Sunday   15:22, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
 * How does USGS use it though? Or did you find that the site is run by the Iranian newspaper? Ealdgyth - Talk 14:16, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
 * AFP stands for Agence France-Press, one of the oldest news agencies in the world. See under "News Links" at http://neic.usgs.gov/neis/bulletin/index.html It's the first link. --I'm an Editorofthewiki[citation needed] 23:43, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
 * THat link is dead, by the way. Ealdgyth - Talk 23:44, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Wrong URL. It is http://neic.usgs.gov/neis/eq_depot/2002/eq_020622/ --I'm an Editorofthewiki[citation needed] 00:22, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
 * This doesn't show that the usgs uses it as a source, they are merely linking to it, as one of several news links on that page. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:56, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't know why the US government would be linking to a source that is wrong. --I'm an Editorofthewiki[citation needed] 18:28, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Heh. The US Government has no clue at times. But whatever... it'll do..
 * Otherwise sources look okay. Links check out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:30, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Image check complete - descriptions, sources, and licensing look ok. Awadewit (talk) 16:51, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Simple Comment - Current Ref 2 needs its accessdate formatted properly. It is currently a red link. --haha169 (talk) 00:12, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Sandy fixed it. --I'm an Editorofthewiki[citation needed] 23:49, 21 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Support - Excellent work. My concerns about prose from the previous FAC have been addressed very satisfactorily. Nousernamesleft (talk) 00:36, 21 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Please have an independent collaborator verify this article's sourcing; it's rare that I have to correct sources in an article at FAC. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 22:39, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
 * All the faulty URLs have been fixed. For the two you added, I was simply too lazy to type it in. Sorry about that. --I'm an Editorofthewiki[citation needed] 23:49, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

1b, comprehensiveness, and 1c, factual accuracy issues.

Please verify the following text via other sources:
 * The earthquake's epicenter was near the small village of Bou'in-Zahra (sometimes spelled Bouynzahra) ...

Sourced to an iffy source (which could be replaced): * http://www.iranmania.com/news/ArticleView/Default.asp?NewsCode=10792&NewsKind=CurrentAffairs Nowhere does that source back the statement that Bouynzahra is an alternate spelling of Bou'in-Zahra, or even mention Bou'in-Zahra.
 * First of all, that isn't even cited to that source. Second, The article is written by Agence France-Press, one of the oldest and most respected news sources, so it thus cannot be classified as "iffy". --I'm an Editorofthewiki[citation needed] 02:07, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
 * It's not any more, but it was :-)  Now there is a self-reference to Wiki in the footnotes, which is a no-no.  And potentially issues with our naming conventions, as well as a breach of WP:LEAD, where alternate names should be mentioned in the lead.  The fixes you implemented have moved away from guidelines, and haven't convinced me of either the name or the location of the quake.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 02:49, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
 * See USS Illinois (BB-65). FA, same deal. --I'm an Editorofthewiki[citation needed] 22:28, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Nevermind, I have reworded the note as to avoid a self reference and mentioned the alternate titles in the lead. --I'm an Editorofthewiki[citation needed] 02:08, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Yet, another reliable source disagrees, saying that Boi'in-Zahra is 60 kilometers from Qazvin, the capital of the province, and specifically saying that Bouynzahra was another city affected:
 * ... la mayoría de las muertes ocurrieron en la población de Bou'in-Zahra, a 60 kilómetros de Qazvin, la capital de la provincia. ... La televisión iraní mostró ayer las primeras imágenes de la tragedia en las que los habitantes de Bouynzahra, otra de las ciudades afectadas, aparecían cubiertos de polvo y arrodillados ante sus casas destruidas.  http://www.elpais.com/articulo/internacional/500/muertos/2000/heridos/terremoto/Iran/elpepiint/20020623elpepiint_14/Tes

And yet another source says that Bouynzahra is a district, not a town:
 * http://articles.latimes.com/2002/jun/23/world/fg-iran23

While one source appears to equate the two words, calling Bouynzahra a city:
 * http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/1398032/500-dead-in-Iranian-earthquake.html

Yet another spelling, Buin-Zahra, offered at this page, and it's not clear that the article is comprehensive, considering all of the information available in all of these sources. Need to nail this down better.

Complicating issues further, our article on Qazvīn Province mentions Booin Zahra; this needs to be sorted.
 * Booin Zahra is wrong, corrected. --I'm an Editorofthewiki[citation needed] 00:43, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

If it is determined that Bouynzahra, Buin-Zahra, Booin Zahra and Boi'in-Zahra are the same city, it would seem that a better source (like the telegraph, above) could be used, but it's not clear to me at this point whether they are the same. Worse, it doesn't appear that any of these are the official name used for the earthquake anyway:

Other official sources linked in the article call it the "Avaj Region Earthquake" or "Avaj Earthquake" or "Changureh Earthquake"; how was the article name chosen, and why aren't these alternate names included in the lead? Also, why isn't more of the information, history, geology from these sources included? I suggest more thorough research is needed here, and a closer look at comprehensiveness based on the info in the sources. Perhaps getting one of the Wiki geologists involved would help. Sandy Georgia (Talk) 00:51, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
 * The article name was chosen because the official report placed the epicenter at Bou'in-Zahra. I will work on incorporating the sources into the article. --I'm an Editorofthewiki[citation needed] 00:45, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Another concern: searching google scholar on the correct name (Avaj earthquake) yields numerous scholarly sources.  Have those sources been accessed?  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 02:56, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
 * This source looks good: http://wwwsoc.nii.ac.jp/jsnds/contents/saigai_report/Changureh20020622.html. I would add it but I'm off to breakfast.
 * I've used the source for the article. There wasn't much to add, anyway. --I'm an Editorofthewiki[citation needed] 00:07, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I have accessed the journal sources, and added anything of value. I think the article is as comprehensive as possible. --I'm an Editorofthewiki[citation needed] 02:47, 24 August 2008 (UTC)


 * The endnotes are all over the place. Clicking the [c] takes me to note a at the bottom; clicking note b at the bottom takes me back up to [a] (and many other random things). Please fix. —Giggy 11:53, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Huh? I just tried that out and none of that stuff happened. You should ask Sandy, she put them in there. -- Lord    Sunday   12:36, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
 * No, I didn't. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 17:10, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I put them in there, thank you very much. I think I've fixed the problem, as it works for me. --I'm an Editorofthewiki[citation needed] 14:45, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm interested as to what "relaticve" means. Nousernamesleft (talk) 18:41, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
 * It was a typo, fixed. --I'm an Editorofthewiki[citation needed] 18:49, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Awesome, they're fixed. —Giggy 07:13, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Images -could use some images for encyclopedia purposes. Have you looked to see if USAID or anybody has any public domain images? I doubt that uploading fair use images would be permitted.
 * Couldn't find anything, sorry. (I hate copyright paranoia as much as you do.) I wonder if we could take some images from the IRNA site, but other than that, zip. --I'm an Editorofthewiki[citation needed] 04:09, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

"The small village of Kisse-Jin was the home of roughly 80 corpses following the rupture". "The home" of "corpses seems a bit crude and looks awkward, need rewording  The Bald One       White cat 21:03, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Changed to "In the small village of Kisse-Jin, roughly 80 corpses were recovered following the rupture." --I'm an Editorofthewiki[citation needed] 04:09, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Good. I couldn't find any free images either although one site had some great eyewitness images of the disaster which would considerably help the article. Perhaps one day Iranian wikipedia will have one?  The Bald One       White cat 12:02, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

–Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone  20:00, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Support Comments
 * The 2002 Bou'in-Zahra earthquake (also known as the 2002 Avaj earthquake or the 2002 Changureh earthquake[a]) occurred on June 22, 2002 in a region of northwestern Iran which is crossed by several major fault lines. Wikilink Iran and fault line.
 * Done. --I'm an Editorofthewiki[citation needed] 04:17, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
 * According to the International Institute of Earthquake Engineering and Seismology (IIEES), the earthquake was felt as far away as the capital city of Tehran, approximately 180 miles (290 km) east of the epicenter, although no damage was reported there. Most houses in the region were single-story masonry buildings, and virtually all of these collapsed. Really needs to be split into two sentences.
 * Huh? It is two sentences. Please elaborate. --I'm an Editorofthewiki[citation needed] 04:22, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Whoops, I misread. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone  13:49, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Image:Kharaghan.jpg confuses me. The caption in the article says the towers are seen after the 2002 quake, while the image description says the picture depicts them before the 2003 one.
 * There was a 2003 one, though I don't think it damaged the area. Apparently the pictures were before the 2002 one, which I fixed on both the article and the image. --I'm an Editorofthewiki[citation needed] 04:26, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
 * The earthquake occurred at 02:58 UTC (7:28 a.m. Iran Standard Time),[1][5] while most of those affected were in their homes. This sentence tells me most people were in their homes, while this sentence, Most of the dead were women, children and the elderly,[15] as many of the men were working in local vineyards tells me the men were outside? Which one is it?
 * Hmm, I seemed to have contradicted myself. Changed to "...while many Iranians were in their homes." --I'm an Editorofthewiki[citation needed] 04:30, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Newer structures, many built in accordance with the Iranian code of practice for seismic-resistant design, survived much better. Is poorly worded
 * Changed to "Newer structures built in accordance with the Iranian code of practice for seismic-resistant design fared much better." --I'm an Editorofthewiki[citation needed] 04:44, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
 * The 2002 Bou'in-Zahra earthquake triggered many landslides over an area of about 3600 km2. We already know the earthquake was in 2002; no need to repeat it.
 * Removed. --I'm an Editorofthewiki[citation needed] 04:45, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
 * According to Gary Oshea of International Rescue, the volunteersdid not have enough technical equipment, and the religious leaders seemed unwilling to contribute much. Is "volunteersdid" a word?
 * Duh, it was a typo, fixed. --I'm an Editorofthewiki[citation needed] 04:46, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Comment If Image:Kharaghan.jpg is pre-earthquake description, then what is the necessaity of this image in this article? The image does not illustrate the effect of the earthquake.  Otolemur crassicaudatus  (talk) 04:53, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
 * No, but it does show what the building was like, for illustration purposes. I wonder if I can use fair use images on the article. --I'm an Editorofthewiki[citation needed] 05:00, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Article is overall well-written and well-referenced. Support.  Otolemur crassicaudatus  (talk) 05:06, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

More Blofeld comments

My main concerns like Sandy Georgia's about the article is comprehensiveness and quality of prose and the way in which the facts are presented and indeed their full verification. It could use a copyedit for style particularly with the removal of the stubbier sentences of which there are a lot into more flowing sentences which have a greater readability. I found the earlier sections of the article quite difficult to read and found myself having to reread certain phrases or sentences to make sure I understood it.

I;ve a little confused by reading in the introduction that the "area is known for destructive earthquakes" yet later down it appears that" Earthquakes happen less frequently in the Qazvin Province compared to the Iranian national average Earthquakes happen less frequently in the Qazvin Province compared to the Iranian national average". If this is the case then the area can't be particularly renowned for its destructive earthquakes which appear more commnly elesewhere. If you are referring to the extent of the damage or intensity of the quake then you need to reword this to avoid confusion. The Bald One      White cat 14:20, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Um, no, I don't think it is really all that confusing. The area experiences strong earthquakes, when it has them. -- Lord   ₪   Sunday   14:31, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

"This particular landmass is believed to be "growing through a relict Neogene topography" -does nothing to explain to me what this is to me - WP:CONTEXT. Most people would think"What on earth is a "relict Neogene topography" -It is important the reader reads that section and doesn't have any grey areas of understanding. The Bald One      White cat 14:24, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I'll leave that one to Ed. -- Lord   ₪   Sunday   14:34, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I have linked the word "Neogene". Hopefully that helps. --I'm an Editorofthewiki[citation needed] 14:37, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Personally I feel there are too many citations particularly in the first few paragraphs of the Damage and casualties often three or four a sentence which seems to affect its readability and flow. The second sentence is particular is an example of Over-citation with what looks like 5 citations. The rest of that section is OK.I am always keen to improve citation but occasionally it does not often need to be done as oftne as one might think. The Bald One      White cat 14:27, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, the reviewers here proposed that we add more references to touch it up a bit, so I really don't get this whole mess. I agree, with Blofeld, we are over-citing. -- Lord   ₪   Sunday   14:34, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
 * More citations? Its extremely well referenced.  The Bald One       White cat 14:41, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I am simply citing each fact, according to thesource. How do you propose I can change this? --I'm an Editorofthewiki[citation needed] 14:39, 26 August 2008 (UTC)


 * "Most of the dead were women, children and the elderly,[15] as many of the men were working in local vineyards" - problematic in that this seems to include the entire population pyramid of dmeogrpahics. Children, women, working men and the elderly. Information given seems a bit vague and not precise. The Bald One       White cat 14:39, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't understand what you mean. I simply said who died and who didn't. Please elaborate. --I'm an Editorofthewiki[citation needed] 14:41, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

You said that most of the dead were women, children, working men and the elderly which in any normal society would be pretty much stating the obvious. If a specific group such as women and children received far more deaths than any other part of society though or a certain group was most affected please assert this. If not, then encyclopedically that sentence has little value. The Bald One      White cat 14:47, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually I just said that most of the dead were women, children, and the elderly. The men, for the most part, survived. I think this was clear enough. --I'm an Editorofthewiki[citation needed] 15:08, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

"Over 20 aftershocks were recorded, with magnitudes up to 5.1 on the moment magnitude scale. At least three caused further casualties and damage. Most of these had their epicenter within 25 km of the main shock. I would avoid short snappy sentences and keep this in two sentences to make it flow better.  The Bald One       White cat 14:44, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Done by you. Heh. -- Lord   ₪   Sunday   14:56, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

"Damage to the historic Kharaqan tomb towers, which were in a good state of preservation before the event, suggests that the earthquake was one of the most powerful in the region for approximately 900 years". This seems like a speculative sentence and WP:OR. I'm not debating whether it is true given that the structure has remained intact for 900 years but doesn't the nature in which a building is affected depend on the precise epicentre of the quake and the geology in which the plates collides. Different angles or process can have a major impact on the way in which the surface is affected in different areas and damage to that building could have resulted from a different dynamics and the pattern of movement rather than the sheer force of the quake. "The most powerful in the region for approximately 900 years" is quite a statement and would require scientific expertise to back this claim up other than just speculation. The Bald One       White cat 15:05, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Tweaked. -- Lord   ₪   Sunday   15:06, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
 * This statement had a ref to a scientific journal, so it certainly wasn't OR. --I'm an Editorofthewiki[citation needed] 15:10, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Thats good I should have followed up that source, but it still didn't back it up by any scientific evidence in the article and seemed to be more a casual observation. Could you show me where in the Source that is provided it analyses the structural dynamics of the Kharaqan towers? Where does it back up this claim of the 900 years? The Bald One      White cat 15:17, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
 * That shows only the abstract of the article. I acessed the entire thing, which said that. --I'm an Editorofthewiki[citation needed] 15:27, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

I believe you of course but if somebody else is verifying it they'd want to check it.
 * Never mind, I have linked to a PDF document which shows the entire article. --I'm an Editorofthewiki[citation needed] 15:39, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Great job Ed. That journal is an excellent scientific analysis of the disaster. The Bald One       White cat 15:53, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Abdarreh and Abdareh. Are these the same places or are they different? There is a variation in spelling if so and "vincinity" I take it you mean "vicinity"? If you are discussing Abdarreh and the other village I would keep that in one paragraph. The first sentence of that seems to have been misplaced in the preceding paragraph The Bald One       White cat 15:14, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Both typos, fixed. --I'm an Editorofthewiki[citation needed] 15:44, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

47 "fall and topple zones". Does a fall and topple zone have a formal meaning? What is meant by this exactly? Landslides triggered by the earthquake mostly occurred in the "most susceptible geologic areas", where there were many landslides before. Slightly awkward could be reworded and needs clarification. Do you mean the epicentre or along fault lines or what? If you mean areas of a weak geological structure as I think he do which are most "susceptible to damage" then it is pretty obvious that landslides will affect these areas most. Thats what I would think anyway as a reader. The Bald One      White cat 15:34, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Linked and reworded. --I'm an Editorofthewiki[citation needed] 15:56, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

"After officials launced an appeal for assistance". Do you mean "Other officials launched an appeal for assistance"? If so whom and what? The Bald One      White cat 15:36, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
 * "Iranian" added. --I'm an Editorofthewiki[citation needed] 16:17, 26 August 2008 (UTC)


 * In the lead, it states 1,300 were injured. However, according to the source, 2000-4000 were injured. Another sources states 245 were killed, not 261. Which is right? how do you turn this on  16:04, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
 * The source (BBC) says that 1,500 were injured. That was pretty much a final report, so I've used that. Likewise the 261 is from the USGS, and the info for 245 was preliminary. --I'm an Editorofthewiki[citation needed] 16:13, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Well the source in the lead says different to the text. Could it be fixed? how do you turn this on  16:18, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Did I get it? --I'm an Editorofthewiki[citation needed] 22:41, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
 * "There was great public anger" sounds like something out of a tabloid newspaper. What's wrong with "The public were angry"? how do you turn this on  16:07, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually that would be "The public was angry" :) Fixed. --I'm an Editorofthewiki[citation needed] 16:15, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Indeed :-) Forgive my atrocious Engrish skillz how do you turn this on  16:18, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Mine ain't oll korrect either. :) --I'm an Editorofthewiki[citation needed] 16:34, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

"A bridge failed..." What does that mean, it collapsed? how do you turn this on 16:30, 27 August 2008 (UTC) "Surface cracks were observed between the villages of Abdareh and Changureh, that suffered the heaviest damage, being roughly 25 kilometers from the epicenter." That sentence sounds incredibly awkward. how do you turn this on 16:32, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, reworded. --I'm an Editorofthewiki[citation needed] 16:34, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Changed to: "Surface cracks were observed in Abdareh and Changureh, the villages that suffered the heaviest damage, being roughly 25 kilometers from the epicenter. " --I'm an Editorofthewiki[citation needed] 16:38, 27 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Supporting per request. how do you turn this on  21:50, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
 * What does "per request" mean? Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 21:52, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
 * It means someone asked me to make a !vote, here. I wasn't canvassed, and since I commented here it makes sense for me to make a !vote in the end, right? how do you turn this on  21:56, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Each time I have looked at this article to see if it's ready for promotion, I find ongoing issues. There are citation cleanup needs still, there was overcitation, there are MoS breaches on units and missing conversions, there are accessdates when there are no URLs, etc. These are basic cleanup issues that should have been tended to long ago, and give concern about the Supports so far. Sandy Georgia (Talk) 16:58, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Is it my support you find concerning? If so, I'll remove it. how do you turn this on  19:32, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I think I have adressed the issues. If not give me a holler. --I'm an Editorofthewiki[citation needed] 19:59, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I certainly won't strike my perfectly valid opinion at someone's concern; I'm unsure why you would, How. In defense of my support, I simply place a great deal less weight on the issues you mention than you seem to, Sandy. Nousernamesleft (talk) 23:03, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Well I am rather new to this process, so I thought I'd made a mistake in supporting. I happen to agree with NUL that the issues aren't really concerning at all. As long as it is written well and is fully cited and accurate, that's fine for me. I don't consider the way the references or units are formatted as a big problem that can prevent this being featured. But this is a noob's opinion. how do you turn this on  23:19, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
 * That basically summarises my thoughts as well. My last message, by the way, was probably badly worded - I'd strike it if the concern was rather important - such as the entire article being a copyvio - but I simply don't place much weight on those issues, as you said. Nousernamesleft (talk) 23:20, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.