Wikipedia:Peer review/2010 Pichilemu earthquake/archive1

2010 Pichilemu earthquake
This peer review discussion has been closed. I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to nominate it for FA-status. I think it is quite comprehensive, although a bit short, but it contains all the important info on the quake.

Thanks, Diego Grez (talk) 01:23, 12 October 2010 (UTC)


 * There is a disambiguation link on Santa Cruz
 * Length: you mention that the article is rather short; it is 893 words of text. Other earthquake articles that have attained FA status are all betwen 1,500 and 2000 words, approximately twice the length of yours. It would be worth your while to look at these, and to note in which areas these articles have more information than yours.
 * One obvious area in which more information is needed concerns Pichilemu itself. The article says nothing about the town - if it is a town. What sort of place is it? What is its population? What are its industries, etc? An earthquake article should not be confined to technical details. We could also do with more informaion about the earlier 27 February, e.g. where was its epicenter, and how far from Pichilemu  is this?
 * Some specific problems with the text;-
 * Multiple references in leads are generally unnecessary, since the lead merely summarises the main points of the text and the material should be referenced there. Long reference strings on basic factual points are unnecessary, full stop.
 * Second paragraph of lead is written confusingly. If I have understood it correctly, I think the first two sentences should read something like: "The earthquake was caused by increased regional stress arising from an earthquake on 27 February, centered on xxxxx, which was felt throughout central Chile. The 11 March earthquake was at first thought to be aftershocks from the 27 February event, but University of Chile Seismologist Jaime Campos identified it as  an "independent earthquake".
 * Some technical language is inevitable, but what is "suducting", and "focal depths"
 * The lead says the earthquake occured "40 kilometres (25 mi) southwest from Pichilemu, O'Higgins Region, Chile". The main text merely says "The earthquake was positioned west of Pichilemu." It is more usual to have the summary in the lead and the detail in the main text.
 * "The area most affected by the earthquake was Pichilemu, the epicenter of the earthquake". unnecessary repetition of "earthquake". I suggest rewriting, combining two csentences along the lines of: "At Pichilemu, its epicenter, the earthquake destroyed Agustín Ross Park, most of Agustín Ross Cultural Centre, and severely affected the Espinillo and Rodeíllo villages." Probably "damaged" would be better than "affected", which sounds feeble.
 * "small waves were seen in the area surrounding Pichilemu". Is this sea waves, or something else? Please clarify
 * It would be useful to have an idea of the distances from Pichilemu of some of the places mentioned: Rancagua, Valparaiso, San Antonio etc.
 * How can both 16cm and 29cm be represented as equivalent to 1 ft? The latter is about correct. Also, how can waves i ft tall be equated to a tsunami? I used to take my kids paddling in more than that.
 * Per MOS, numbers under 10 should be written out, thus "six hours" not "6 hours"
 * " The earthquake took place shortly before the new president, Sebastián Piñera, was sworn in, at about 12:15 local time (15:15 UTC), at the Chilean congress in Valparaíso, where the shaking was clearly felt." Convoluted, and president of what (not all your readers will know)?
 * 2 May 2010 aftershock: put the paranthetical note in a less intrusive place; putting it between "5.8" and "Mw" is not sensible, nor is the positioning of a citation between these elements.
 * 29 September 2010 Lolol aftershock: Begin the section "A further aftershock..." etc
 * "Telephone calls were truncated for in O'Higgins Region" Wahat is meant by "truncated for"?

I hope these points will help you to improve the article. I cannot say that at present I see it as a viable FA candidate, but if you can expand it and take on board the points raised here, it may look more promising. Brianboulton (talk) 22:58, 17 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks, these comments are really helpful. :-) --Diego Grez (talk) 23:03, 17 October 2010 (UTC)