Wikipedia:Peer review/1968 Illinois earthquake/archive2

1968 Illinois earthquake

 * Previous peer review
 * A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for July 2009.
 * A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for July 2009.

This peer review discussion has been closed. I've listed this article for peer review because it recently failed an FAC on prose grounds, so I'd love to improve the prose to an FA standard, if it improves this article. Because that's the whole goal, isn't it, improving articles?

Thanks,  ceran  thor 18:56, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Finetooth comments: This generally seems fine to me. Here are a few suggestions for improvement.

Lead
 * "In studying its cause, scientists discovered the Cottage Grove Fault, in the Southern Illinois Basin." - It might be worthwhile to link Cottage Grove Fault, which is a subsection of the Harrisburg, Illinois, article.

History
 * "The 1965 shock contradicted this idea, as it was felt only in the region of Tamms... " - It might be slightly more clear to re-state the idea. Suggestion: "The 1965 shock contradicted the idea that all quakes in the region are felt over a wide area because this one was noticed only near Tamms..."

Geography
 * "The earthquake occurred at a depth of 16 miles (25.7495040000000 km)." - The precision of the second number must be intentional, but it looks strange when paired with a number rounded to the nearest whole mile. For the sake of readability, would it be better to say "about 16 miles (26 km)" and then to give the more precise figure in a footnote?
 * "At that time, no faults were known in the immediate epicentral region (see below), but the motion corresponded to movement along the Wabash Valley Fault System roughly 10 miles (16 km) east of the region." - Generally, direct instructions to the reader like "see below" don't work well. Where below? I'd suggest deleting "(see below)".

Damage
 * "in the home of one family in Dale, Illinois, near Tuckers Corners and southwest of McLeansboro." - Wikilink McLeansboro, Illinois, here instead of on second reference in the next paragraph?
 * "For instance, a concrete-brick cistern... " - Wikilink cistern?

Response
 * "thinking a water tank of 1,100 US gallons (4,164 l) had fallen" - If you round the gallons to the nearest hundred, do you want to round the liters to nearest whole number? Maybe (4,200 l) would be more appropriate. Would it be worthwhile to link l, thus: 1100 USgal?
 * "Apart from the millions who encountered the earthquake, some did not." - Suggestion: "Although millions of people felt the earthquake, others in the region did not."

Images
 * The image of the Gateway Arch needs to be moved wholly into one section instead of overlapping two sections. Per MOS:IMAGES, it also should not bump against the third-level head. I think it would be OK to move it into the "Response" section and to the right. It might also be possible to squeeze it into the "Damage" section, if you prefer to place it there.

Other
 * I'm happy to say that the dabfinder and link checker tools found no problems in this article.

I hope these suggestions prove helpful. If so, please consider reviewing another article, especially one from the PR backlog. That is where I found this one. Finetooth (talk) 19:18, 27 July 2009 (UTC)