Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/2005 Qeshm earthquake/archive2


 * 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 Ian Rose 01:13, 29 January 2013.

2005 Qeshm earthquake

 * Nominator(s):  ceran  thor 22:43, 26 December 2012 (UTC), Mikenorton

I am nominating this for featured article because it meets the criteria, of course! It's been more than a year since the article failed FAC because of my own lack of initiative in touching up the prose. I've ran over it after getting a great deal of what Tony1 calls "strategic distance", and tuned up the prose and references, and my only worries are that 1.) the geology section may still be a bit tough to understand for laymen and 2.) that it lacks images. But otherwise, I think it's a neat little article that's comprehensive and well-written.  ceran  thor 22:43, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Source review - spotchecks not done
 * Be consistent in how multi-author sources are notated
 * Should be "et al." not "et. al."
 * Be consistent in whether you include publishers for newspapers or not
 * Date for the UN source? Nikkimaria (talk) 17:45, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Apparently I'm not as meticulous as I thought! All fixed.  ceran  thor 18:40, 27 December 2012 (UTC)


 * A note to any potential reviewers: The geology section is undergoing a reorganization, so commentary would probably be better directed towards other sections. Any efforts are of course appreciated.  ceran  thor 20:48, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Update: All sorted out! Reviewers are welcome and obviously encouraged.  ceran  thor 16:13, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Support Ben   Mac  Dui  11:44, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Earlier Comments and Replies
It's a fine article but there are numerous minor wording issues that need attention.

Lead: ::of Qeshm Island off of Southern Iran.
 * Reads oddly to me. Why not just " of Qeshm Island off Southern Iran."?
 * the second major one in Iran that occurred in 2005
 * Similarly, better as " the second major one that occurred in Iran in 2005"?
 * It killed 13 people.
 * Possibly better as a single sentence joined with the preceding one: "February, which killed
 * with the highly active region
 * with "this highly active region"?
 * You can link Qeshm in infobox.
 * Is "Southern Iran" a province you can link to? If not, should it be 'southern Iran" with a link to the second word as this is the first time it appears.
 * I have also tweaked the lead wording here. Ben   Mac  Dui  11:52, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Background
 * "earthquakes" appears twice in the opening sentence - the second clause "and this particular region is prone to earthquakes" is redundant without a qualifier as it is clear they happen daily. I presume something like "and this particular region is prone to regular more severe seismic events." would be the case? and the following one.
 * Seismic analysis has identified more than 80 earthquakes stronger than magnitude 5 in the last 100 years[a],
 * does this refer to " this particular region" or Iran generally?
 * note "a" should appear after the comma.
 * The majority of Iranian quakes occur in the upper crust, close to the surface.
 * Are there any implications that are relevant e.g. that this makes them more or less damaging?
 * The geologic processes involved in the triggering of shallow- or or deep-focus quakes are different. In terms of damage, there isn't necessarily a link; the earthquakes in this region of Iran tend to be at around 10 km, whereas megathrust earthquakes (e.g. Fukushima, Boxing Day) are at around 30 km.  Maxim (talk)  16:14, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
 * The simple answer is that it varies, and the complicated answer is probably located in a paper somewhere. Maxim is correct.
 * Shallower focus is always more damaging for the same magnitude
 * I think we could say this then, as it is germane to background discussion of the event. Ben   Mac  Dui  11:52, 1 January 2013 (UTC) PS As this seems to be a general point I don't think any source needs to be be specific to Iran.  Ben   Mac  Dui  20:06, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
 * In which case I have a source - I'll add it. Mikenorton (talk) 22:03, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Bilham " blames construction practices for deaths in Iranian earthquakes."
 * Does he mean all deaths? Surely a qualifier is needed here.
 * 20th century, 1 in 3,000
 * You don't need the first comma
 * that the greatest damages
 * damages plural?
 * where no building code exists.
 * Do you really mean that a singular code does not exist for all rural areas or that "no building codes exist". (The former is implied by the next sentence).
 * As per the source, there is no building code for rural areas.   Maxim (talk)  16:14, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Geological setting
 * Please Can you link or explain " shortening"? I don't see anything in Wiktionary (unless it has the same meaning as in shortbread).
 * 'Simply Folded Belt'
 * The use of caps contrasts with the preceding sentence.
 * Don't use single quote marks
 * I hate to be one to break consistency, but the capitalization is based off of how the different faults are always named. Simply Folded Belt is always capitalized, while Zagros isn't. I don't have a reason why.
 * you don't link to Conglomerate (geology) on first use of the term.
 * There is evidence of intermediate level detachment at some of the weaker layers, leading to folds at different stratigraphic levels have different locations, orientations or wavelengths.
 * Unless I am missing a technical understanding the syntax in this sentence is garbled.
 * It was a bit - I've tried to improve it
 * Earthquake focal mechanisms and hypocentral depths show that shortening is accommodated…
 * I think you mean that "Measurements of Earthquake focal mechanisms and hypocentral depths show…"
 * Epicentre
 * The lead says that the "epicenter was about 1,500 kilometers (932 mi) south of Tehran in the Persian Gulf," but the map suggests it was on the island itself.
 * This has been clarified; the epicenter has since been moved due to better research.  ceran  thor 16:59, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't think you need to state that the map is a Map - you can just have the description be "The main fold structures…."
 * anticlinal is a dup link

Specific details/Characteristics
 * The earthquake was measured at 6.0
 * The sentence would read more fluently if you explained that " The earthquake was initially measured at 6.0…"
 * interpreted to represent
 * I think this may be better as " interpreted as representing"
 * represent appears twice in this sentence
 * Surface displacement during the earthquake has been measured using SAR interferometry. An area of uplift, with a maximum value of about 20 centimeters (8 in), was centered over the eastern end of the Latif anticline.[14] A smaller area of subsidence is observed to the south of the uplifted area and the lack of a sharp boundary between the two suggest that the fault does not come to the surface.
 * has been, was, is - consistent tenses please.
 * between about 8 kilometers (5 mi) and 4 kilometers (2 mi) depth,
 * missing word - e.g. "in depth" or similar
 * possibly related to a major NW-SE trending strike-slip fault
 * I am struggling to ensure a good understanding of what is meant and may appear unduly pedantic, but I think this means "possibly within a major NW-SE..", rather than something like "possibly caused by a major NW-SE.."
 * My access to the full text of this source has temporarily disappeared, so I would rather wait until I get it back (should be within a few days - Elsevier does this every year) Mikenorton (talk) 17:21, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Now that I have access again, I've reworded it. Mikenorton (talk) 23:28, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
 * focal mechanism is a dup link
 * "Specific details" - can you come up with a less tautologous heading?
 * "but a 3 kilometers" - template convert needs help here as the plural does not work with "a". Ben   Mac  Dui  12:17, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Damage and casualties
 * It killed 13 people and injured 100 locals on Qeshm Island.
 * You seem to be distinguishing between "people" and "locals" - is there a reason for this?
 * In Zirang (Ziranag), a nearby village on Qeshm
 * nearby to what?
 * Thirteen villages were destroyed including Tonban, Ramekan, Gavarzin, Khaledin, Direstan, Kushe, Karavan, Turyan, Tom senati, Gorbehdan, Ziranag, Giahdan,[23] and Gourian,[24] seven other villages experiencing extensive damage.
 * As there are 13 villages on the list you don't need the qualifier "including". Suggest something like "Thirteen villages were destroyed (Tonban, Ramekan, Gavarzin, Khaledin, Direstan, Kushe, Karavan, Turyan, Tom senati, Gorbehdan, Ziranag, Giahdan[23] and Gourian[24]) and seven other villages experienced extensive damage.
 * Bandar Abbas, Abu Zabi, Ajman, Dubayy, al-Fujayrah and Ras al Khaymah;
 * I am assuming your use of redirects here is to maintain consistent use of Iranian nomenclature. I don't think this is necessary and tends to suggest to the uninitiated that, for example "Abu Zabi" is an obscure Iranian city.
 * The earthquake was reported in Oman.
 * and no doubt elsewhere, in the sense of being referred to. The source says it was "felt", which seems like an unusually soft substrate for an earthquake. : ) Please help us.
 * No major damage occurred at the epicenter;[25] residents of the city did report that the shaking burst windows, leading citizens to evacuate their homes in fear of collapse.
 * you have just told us that 13 villages were destroyed near the epicenter. Which city? Qeshm? Oman?
 * I think you need a link to Qeshm, Iran in the phrase "residents of Qeshm did report that the shaking burst windows". It clearly can't refer to villages where the damage was much worse than this. Ben   Mac  Dui  13:06, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
 * In total more than 2,000 people were affected./s>
 * Given that a long list of locations precedes this, stating that this refers to the island or province would be helpful.
 * I think it's pretty clear as is; 2,000 total, everywhere.  ceran  thor 16:59, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
 * One major hospital crowded with the injured and lacking medical supplies for treatment and an airport on the epicentral island, and power lines on the island were severed.
 * Needs a tweak or two.
 * In one school
 * where?
 * Unfortunately the references are no help.  ceran  thor 16:59, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Fair enough, but if it is reasonable to assume it was on the epicentral island, then the two sentences prior to "panicked" could be lifted and replaced prior to "Buildings in Dubai" - otherwise you lose the geographical flow from local to regional. Ben   Mac  Dui  13:06, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
 * If the earthquake had occurred during the morning while residents were asleep, rather than mid-afternoon (1:52 pm local time),[22] it could have been deadlier. Housing in the epicentral area consisted chiefly of mud and brick,[20] which could crush sleeping residents.
 * you have two "could"s here and although the implications are obvious the uncited ends of both sentences stick out rather. Perhaps "If the earthquake had occurred during the morning while residents were asleep, rather than mid-afternoon (1:52 pm local time),[22] it could have been deadlier as housing in the epicentral area consisted chiefly of mud and brick.[20] "
 * were there any reports of damage to oil industry facilities in the region?
 * Not that I know of!  ceran  thor 16:59, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Gavarzin is a dup link
 * you could link to Afonso de Albuquerque

Relief efforts and aftermath
 * Aid workers from the domestic region began delivering supplies such as food, blankets, and tents
 * It would add to the drama if you could tell us how quickly they did so.
 * The long list of stuff is just filler - you could move the details to a Note.
 * 40 of the staff of the IRCS,
 * is a bit clumsy - "40 IRCS staff" might do.
 * To help provide a structure to reliving efforts, 3 ambulances, 46 trucks, 3 helicopters
 * apart from the typo, I am not sure how these inanimate objects " provide a structure", which implies some kind of co-ordinated strategy.
 * Injured residents were evacuated via a helicopter,
 * You just told us they had at least 3 - was only one used for this purpose?
 * and were later transported to nearby Bandar Abbas
 * OK - in which case, where were they initially evacuated to?
 * all movement of damaged houses would require prior approval
 * I doubt anyone was intending to move the houses. Did he mean "movement into", "removals from"?
 * UNICEF (United Nations Children's Fund) offered assistance to Iran, and the official in charge of response stated, "We are preparing to respond if needed".[34]
 * Given that "UNICEF" is a very well-known acronym (and probably better known than the full name) I don't know that the explanation in brackets is necessary.
 * WP:MOSQUOTE implies that the opening "We" should be "we", although it does not say so outright and WP:QUOTE uses a quotation that does have a cap in the middle of a sentence. One despairs of MOS. I'd use a colon preceding the quote myself but I can't see anything that says this is desirable.
 * They elaborated that Iranian authorities "appeared to have things under control".[34]
 * missing "the" before Iranian?
 * in these parts of Asia
 * that's the third "Asia" in two sentences. You can't avoid the first two so may be just "in these locations" or similar.

Images
 * The licences are good.
 * The fortress and Emirates should have citations for the statements made about them.
 * Could do with one or maybe two more if you can find relevant ones. I realise this may be hard but I don't get a clear visual sense of the island from the article.

Refs
 * FN1 has an inconsistent date system
 * FN29 - you can link to BBC News Online
 * I note that Preusser et al. is a study of Kish not Qeshm - if the data provided is an estimate from the former please make this clear.
 * It was a study of Kish by ESR dating, but control was provided by using other techniques and by measuring other areas in the region. The hope is that the results between different dating techniques and between different areas in the region are all consistent. In this case, a figure for Qeshm with uranium-series dating was given.  Maxim (talk)  16:14, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
 * "Nissen, Edwin, Ghorashi, Manoucher, Jackson, James, Parsons, Barry," Nikkimaria will clobber you if you are not consistent, but the I don't think this works well as there is no distinction in the list between surnames and forenames. Something like: "Nissen, Edwin; Ghorashi, Manoucher; Jackson, James; Parsons, Barry;"
 * I just changed them to initials to match the other references in the Bibliography. Mikenorton (talk) 14:23, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I noticed elsewhere that in the last couple of days is for no apparent reason producing refs in one long list in my browser. If this is a more general problem   fixes it.  Ben   Mac  Dui  11:32, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

A happy Hogmanay from Ben   Mac  Dui  IRST 14:45, 31 December 2012
 * Thank you so much for your detailed review. Everything that does not have a response has been resolved.  ceran  thor 18:12, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
 * We are getting there. There are a few unstruck comments left plus one or two more I added. I'll give it another read through later today. Ben   Mac  Dui
 * I did miss a few, didn't I? My apologies. I resolved most of them; there are two and a half comments that haven't yet been addressed.  ceran  thor 18:04, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think everything has been addressed!  ceran  thor 21:19, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Maxim


 * Support—although I have done some relatively major edits to the article. Specifically, I support on all criteria except 1a as another review on prose could be useful per my talkpage comments.
 * The article is comprehensive and well-researched overall (not only with regards to the geology parts)
 * Licensing and sourcing on all images checks out. I removed one image that was problematic.

 Maxim (talk)  22:08, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the support, Maxim! I pinged a copyeditor a little while ago, but he hasn't responded yet. Your comments have been really helpful. Just to let you know, I removed the subheading because I know that headings bother some of the delegates.  ceran  thor 01:07, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Nothing major from me, just nit-picks and quibbles. Feel free to disagree.
 * Comments from Cassianto
 * Lead
 * "The earthquake was the second major one that occurred in Iran in 2005" - May I suggest - "It was Iran's second major earthquake that year".
 * Do we need to link Iran?.
 * Double usage of "not". A typo I'm sure.


 * Background
 * "Since the start of the 20th century 1 in 3,000 Iranians have died in an earthquake-related incident."

Looks OK
 * Geological setting


 * Characteristics
 * "...of right lateral and left lateral strike-slip faults" - Repetetion of lateral.
 * "together accommodating north-south shortening beneath the Hormuz salt layer." - Is "accommodating" the right word to use here? It just doesn't sound right to me.
 * I think accomodating is fine here, since it's referring to the faults. If not feel free to suggest something, I can't think of an alternative.  ceran  thor 14:34, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Damage and casualties
 * "I'm not sure "Lasting between 10 and 30 seconds..." Is the best way to start a new section. I would say "The Earthquake, lasted between 10 and 30 seconds "
 * I would swap "burst" windows for the obvious "smashed".
 * "One major hospital that was damaged was crowded with the injured casualties and lacked medical supplies for treatment. - Basically it could do with being reworded.


 * Relief efforts and aftermath
 * "...and 2 minibuses and 2 sniffer dogs" - "2 minibuses and 2 sniffer dogs"
 * "Injured residents were evacuated via a helicopter" - "Injured residents were taken to Bandar Abbas by helicopter" (or something similar).


 * Notes
 * Note A should really end with an inline citation.
 * ...as should Note B.

No need to hurry with this. It is generally a tight little article and one I enjoyed reading. Well done. --  Cassianto Talk    12:56, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Should all be fixed. Thank you for ending the drought!! ;)  ceran  thor 14:32, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Support - based in my resolved comments. The article is seems tight and is well researched. --  Cassianto Talk    20:34, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the support.  ceran  thor 20:57, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Comments: Sorry to be late getting to this. The article looks in reasonably good shape, though there may be a few prose issues. Here are a few points from the lead:
 * "The earthquake was the second major one that occurred in Iran in 2005, following the Zarand earthquake in February." Clunks a bit; perhaps: "It was Iran's second major earthquake in 2005, following that at Zarand in February".
 * "It killed 13 people and devastated 13 villages" - I'd make this the second lead sentence, rather than the third.
 * Would it be better to say the earthquake "registerd 6.0" rather than "was 6.0"?
 * Rather than "it did not not cause many fatalities", which seems a bit dismissive of the 13 deaths, I'd say "the number of fatalities was limited".
 * Just a comment: "1 in 3,000 deaths in Iran attributable to earthquakes" does not, on the face of it, seem a particularly alarming proportion. Quite low, in fact (compare road accident deaths in the UK, or gun-related deaths in the US). Are you sure about the statistic?

I'm reading on, and will post more comments later. While I'm at it I'll just mention that some of your references have "pp." page formats while the majority are "pg". You should standardise. Brianboulton (talk) 15:03, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks. 1 in 3000 doesn't seem like a lot, but I believe it's more than any other country in the world. Is the accepted standard pgs, then? Or is it still pg (ie. pg 1-11)?  ceran  thor 16:06, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't see how it can be more than any other country in the world, given that over 300,000 died in the Haiti quake of 2010, 80,000+ in a single Chinese quake in 2008, and there have also been recent Japanese mega-disasters. Given Iran's population and crude death rate, 1 in 3000 is about 120 deaths a year. However, that is not strictly a point for this article and I'm not pressing it. On the paging style, so long as you stick to one style, be it pp or pgs, you're OK. As about 95% of your refs use pg, I imagine you'll want to stick with that. Brianboulton (talk) 19:57, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Anyhow, here are my further comments:
 * Background


 * Double adverbs, particularly multisyllabic ones, ("particularly seismically") never read well. You could rephrase along the lines of "the Zagros region is particularly prone to seismic activity" or "has a high degree of seismic activity"
 * Fixed.
 * Instead of using the technical term "earthquake engineering", which requires use of the link, why not use a pipe and say earthquake protection?
 * Fixed.
 * In the lead, "one geophysicist has suggested that a country-wide rebuilding program will be needed to address the ongoing public safety concerns." This, presumably, is Bilham, but in the main text I can't see that he does more than blame construction practices; nothing about a country-wide rebuilding program.
 * Fixed in the lead with "With 1 in 3,000 deaths in Iran attributable to earthquakes, one geophysicist has listed the lack of strict building codes as a serious concern".
 * Geological setting and Characteristics


 * The general issue in these sections is one of readability. I don't doubt the validity of the information, but not being a geologist and with my school science knowledge a distant memory, I had difficulty with the rather specialised language. Sample sentence: The sedimentary rocks above the salt layer comprise a basal Cambrian conglomerate and a thick sequence of limestones of Palaeozoic to Upper Cretaceous age, known together as the "Competent Group" due to their relatively high mechanical strength, followed by a sequence of weaker marls and interbedded limestones of latest Cretaceous to Lower Miocene age topped by Neogene sandstones and conglomerates. Is there any more reader-friendly way in which this kind of information can be transmitted?
 * I fear not. The section was already hopelessly jargon-y before. It's been cleaned up a lot by more capable and more knowledgeable people than me, so I think it's as close to accessible as it's going to get without losing some of the meaning.
 * That sentence has 12 internal links to aid the reader (admittedly I've added two since reading this comment) - if there are any unlinked technical terms that I've missed, I'll fix that. I'll see if there's anything I can do for readability without losing meaning. Mikenorton (talk) 21:37, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Damage and casualties


 * "Reports of Mercalli scale Intensity III damage came..." - sounds a bit like machine-writing. Perhaps: "Reports of damage at intensity level III of the Mercalli scale came..."
 * Fixed.
 * "Shaking" - is that a technical expression in earthquake science? Shaking of what?
 * Surface shaking. The only technical term I know of is quake, a synonym of shake. I rephrased this a little to make it clearer as "Shaking from the earthquake manifested itself in Oman.[3]", and Shaking links to Quake (phenomenon).
 * "The director of Tehran's seismological building..." Presumably he was director of more than the building?
 * This is faithful to the source, which lists him as "The director of the seismological center in Tehran, Mehdi Zareh".
 * "some suffered broken legs" - some...what?
 * Fixed.
 * "A damaging landslide..." - not sure the adjective is necessary.
 * Fixed.
 * Relief efforts and aftermath


 * What or who is ReliefWeb?
 * Linked.
 * The words "To add to the efforts" are redundant.
 * Fixed.

That's all. Give me a shout when you're done. Brianboulton (talk) 22:13, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Should all be fixed, excluding the geology sections concern.  ceran  thor 20:01, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Support: I have had a slight issue in that the geology and "Characteristics" sections may be difficult for general readers to understand, but it seems that none of the other reviewers share my concern, so I am not pressing it. In general the article reads well, and I am not going to nitpick over minor prose differences. I think the article now meets the FA criteria. Brianboulton (talk) 18:53, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the support, Brian!  ceran  thor 02:19, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Comments from George Ponderevo

I think the prose is still a little bit too raw in places, but with your permission I'll make what changes I think are necessary. Obviously though you're perfectly free to disagree with anything I do and revert it. I've only looked through the lead so far, but I have a few questions: Comments from  More suggestions than anything else, but... Nothing much else springs to the eye. - SchroCat (talk) 09:07, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
 * "... 36 of which were greater than magnitude 2.5". Is 2.5 in some way significant?
 * "... similar to most earthquakes in this zone". What zone? This is the first time the word "zone" has been used.
 * Hopefully clarified
 * ... where the crust is being shortened and thickened". How can the crust be shortened. Do you mean compressed?
 * No, shortened is the correct term I think, thrust faulting is the main way that the crust is shortened (and thickened) in continental collision zones. Mikenorton (talk) 21:37, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Geometrically that makes no sense at all to me, but I'll take your word for it. George Ponderevo (talk) 22:01, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the comments, George.  ceran  thor 11:22, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Are flags common in eathquake infoboxes? I thought—as per WP:INFOBOXFLAG—that they were generally to be avoided.
 * The lead and "Damage and casualties" section both have 13 dead as a bald fact, but the infobox has "at least 13 dead", which indicates uncertainty. Is there a possibility it was more than 13, or are we sure it was?
 * "residents of Qeshm did report that" -> "residents of Qeshm reported that"
 * Should all be fixed! Thanks for the comments.  ceran  thor 11:22, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Support - Nice work and ticks all the right boxes - thanks for considering my suggestions and I'm happy to add my support. - SchroCat (talk) 11:27, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the support!  ceran  thor 02:19, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Oppose. I don't think the prose stands up to scrutiny, as I said above. George Ponderevo (talk) 13:18, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Can you give one or two examples (other than those you've given above) of your remaining concerns?  I  have some issues about the accessibility of the language in the two technical sections, but otherwise I think the prose is OK. Brianboulton (talk) 21:59, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Certainly:
 * "Large cities have a building code that take account of the seismic hazard".
 * I am fixed this. Brianboulton (talk) 08:18, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Seems just the same to me. George Ponderevo (talk) 15:43, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Fixed case agreement
 * "... three quarters of Iranian major cities to major earthquakes".
 * Can you clarify your objection, or fix? Brianboulton (talk) 08:18, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
 * "major ... major". George Ponderevo (talk) 15:43, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Reworded
 * " It is formed of Neogene sediments apart from a diapir of Hormuz salt ...".
 * Again, please clarify or fix?
 * "formed of". George Ponderevo (talk) 15:43, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I think that it was probably fine, but I've reworded the whole sentence
 * " No evidence has been found of surface faulting, but a 3 kilometer (2 mi) long set of bedding-parallel cracks were observed on the northwestern flank of the Ramkan syncline".
 * I have fixed this. Brianboulton (talk) 08:18, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Didn't seem fixed to me, so I've sorted the hyphenation. There's still a problem with the second half of the sentence though; the subject is the singular "set", not the prural "cracks". George Ponderevo (talk) 15:43, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Fixed - it took me ages to spot that, thanks for the clarification
 * "An area of uplift was defined ...". Was it really defined, as opposed to identified?
 * Reworded
 * "... 80 percent of the buildings were demolished". Demolition is something we humans do, not earthquakes.
 * The word is not confined to human activity. Natural forces can demolish, which basically means to destroy. Brianboulton (talk) 08:18, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
 * "Reports of damage at Intensity III of the Mercalli scale ...".
 * Reworded
 * "If the earthquake had occurred during the morning while residents were asleep ...". So the residents sleep the morning away? Early morning? George Ponderevo (talk) 00:50, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I'll leave the nominator to answer your final point. Brianboulton (talk) 08:18, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Fixed.  ceran  thor 17:46, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Comments by Sasata (talk) 17:17, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Yaminifard is incorrectly spelled as Yarminifard; it also looks odd that he's spelled as "Yamini-Fard" in another source, but I guess there's not much to do about that
 * Fixed
 * if you link a journal article title to an external paywalled site, you should include a template
 * Fixed
 * journal article titles use an inconsistent mix of sentence and title case
 * Fixed
 * retrieval dates are not required for PDFs, nor are publishers for journals
 * Removed publishers - couldn't find anything in MOS that mentioned no access dates for pdfs, but that's probably my lack of knowledge
 * the following potential sources came up in a Web of Knowledge/Science Direct search; have they been consulted?


 * Title: Evaluation of earthquake triggering during the 2005-2008 earthquake sequence on Qeshm Island, Iran
 * Author(s): Lohman, R. B.; Barnhart, W. D.
 * Source: JOURNAL OF GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH-SOLID EARTH Volume: 115     Article Number: B12413   DOI: 10.1029/2010JB007710   Published: DEC 16 2010
 * Interesting article, but they came to no firm conclusions


 * Title: Earth surface deformation analysis of 2005 Qeshm earthquake based on three-dimensional displacement field derived from radar imagery measurements
 * Author(s): Amighpey, Masoome; Vosooghi, Behind; Dehghani, Maryam
 * Source: INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF APPLIED EARTH OBSERVATION AND GEOINFORMATION Volume: 11   Issue: 2   Pages: 156-166   DOI: 10.1016/j.jag.2009.01.002   Published: APR 2009
 * Didn't seem to add much to earlier work


 * Title: Improving the level of seismic hazard parameters in Saudi Arabia using earthquake location
 * Author(s): Al-Amri, Abdullah M.; Rodgers, Arthur J.; Al-Khalifah, Tariq A.
 * Source: ARABIAN JOURNAL OF GEOSCIENCES Volume: 1   Issue: 1   Pages: 1-15   DOI: 10.1007/s12517-008-0001-5   Published: JUL 2008
 * Not too much on this earthquake I think, but I don't have access to the full text


 * Title: Calibration of the specific barrier model to Iranian plateau earthquakes and development of physically based attenuation relationships for Iran
 * Author(s): Zafarani, H; Mousavi, M.; Noorzad, As.; Ansari A.
 * Source: Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering Volume: 28 Issue: 7 Pages: 550-576 DOI: 10.1016/j.soildyn.2007.08.001 Published: JUL 2008
 * Just one of the earthquakes used in the analysis


 * I have seen this. Sorry, I've been bogged down by work and exams this week so it's been extremely difficult to even log on to the computer. I think off the top of my head one of the sources was previously used but it offered nothing substantially different so we scrapped it for a more useful source, but I'll have to check these out this weekend.  ceran  thor 17:46, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Just to clarify, I added the above responses. Mikenorton (talk) 22:50, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Delegate comments -- nitpicks:
 * Can't see the need for citations in the infobox when the data is cited in the main body. As far as I can tell, only the epicenter coordinates are not cited later and therefore require sourcing in the infobox.
 * Is anyone particularly keen on a single-sentence paragraph in the middle of the lead? I think the info follows on naturally from the first para and should be part of it (the current third para, being background/context, makes sense separately).
 * Also in the lead, "where the crust is being shortened and thickened" reads oddly to me, almost like it's an engineering project -- can we add exactly what (briefly) is causing the shortening/thickening?
 * I've removed that bit as it doesn't appear to be helping anybody - alternatively there would need to be something on the continental collision and all that would be excessive in the lead I think, but I will have a go if you think that necessary. Mikenorton (talk) 08:13, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 05:08, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Notes section looks a little amateurish compared to the References -- suggest using the style in 1997 Qayen earthquake.
 * Thanks, Ian! These should now all be fixed.  ceran  thor 17:07, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
 * That's all fine, guys. Parting comment: I'm assuming it's standard procedure to include the "Tsunami" parameter in the infobox even if there was no tsunami, if the affected area was an island or on the coast. If that's the reasoning then by all means keep; if not, I'd lose it. Not important enough to slow down promotion though; tks all. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:56, 29 January 2013 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.