Wikipedia:Peer review/2011 Virginia earthquake/archive1

2011 Virginia earthquake
This peer review discussion has been closed. I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to get the quality of the article from GA status to FA status. I would like edits that would help it attain that status. I would appreciate your comments and suggestions. Thanks, Clarkcj12 (talk) 20:47, 14 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Comments from Jsayre64—


 * Lead


 * At the end of the first paragraph, it says, "Several aftershocks, ranging up to 4.5 Mw in magnitude occurred after the main tremor." I'd suggest a comma after the word magnitude.
 * In the second paragraph, it says, "…along with a magnitude-5.8 quake on the New York-Ontario border in 1944…" Make sure the dash used here is an en dash.
 * Issue brought up on talk page here
 * Read WP:LEADCITE about how the lead should generally not cite information that's also cited in the main text. WP:LEAD lists other MOS guidelines and suggestions that are necessary for an article to achieve FA status.
 * note: I've removed all of the citations that I felt I could. Some of the information in the lede is not repeated elsewhere in the article... should it be? In this article, the lede is a description of the 'event' and the remainder of the article describes the causes and effects. Not sure how to procede.   Wikipelli Talk   19:28, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, per WP:LEAD, the body of the article should contain everything discussed in the lead. Honestly, I don't see how this article is even a GA--it lacks MoS compliance throughout (particularly WP:LEAD but also other parts of WP:LAYOUT) and the prose is disorganized and rough in some areas. I suggest these things be reviewed and revised thoroughly before it heads to FAC.  Auree    ★  15:56, 31 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Overall, the lead could use some expansion. The second paragraph should be more than just one sentence if it is to be its own paragraph. A more detailed summary of the damage and other effects of the quake would take care of this problem.


 * Geology


 * At the end of the first paragraph, it says, "During the Cenozoic Era, some of these structures have been further reactivated in a reverse sense." I don't understand what the latter half of that sentence is trying to say.
 * A diagram such as File:Nor rev.png would be very useful to illustrate the plate tectonics explained in this section.


 * Impact


 * In the second paragraph, it says, "Western rock is relatively young, which means it absorbs a lot of the shaking caused by earthquakes." I'd substitute therefore or a similar word for which means.


 * Virginia


 * When the article mentions a place and how far it away it was from the epicenter of the earthquake, it should specify which cardinal direction it was from the epicenter.
 * Also in the first paragraph, it says, "Fallen chimneys and other structural damage to buildings was reported in Mineral and in Louisa, the county seat." It's redundant to say again that there was damage to buildings in Mineral.
 * In the second paragraph, it says, "The two nuclear reactors at the North Anna Nuclear Generating Station, located 10 mi (16 km) from the epicenter, shut down automatically seconds before off-site power was lost because multiple reactor sensors detected a slight power reduction as a result of vibrations in the reactor or monitoring devices." Break this into two sentences for better prose flow.
 * note: I took a stab at rewriting that sentence but I'm not wild about it still - if someone would like to take a look at it!   Wikipelli Talk   14:13, 29 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Washington, D.C.


 * The last sentence in the third paragraph needs a citation.
 * The first sentence in the fourth paragraph is, "Staff at the National Zoo reported that the behavior of some of the animals in the park suggested that they anticipated the quake seconds or even minutes before they felt it." The animals must have felt it or somehow sensed it. They certainly can't predict earthquakes.
 * Though I'm not ready to say they 'certainly can't predict earthquakes' ;)   Wikipelli Talk   23:07, 29 January 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm not quite done reviewing the article, but it's looking great (none of these is a major content issue). Jsayre64   (talk)  22:20, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
 * The information in the lead's second paragraph could be stated again in the Geology section and the information in the third paragraph of the lead is also suitable for the second paragraph of the Impact section. Then you would be able to eliminate all of the citations in the lead. As for the third issue I brought up regarding the Virginia section, it reads just fine now. Jsayre64   (talk)  21:10, 29 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Maryland, Delaware, and West Virginia


 * At the end of the first paragraph, it says, "The 1740 Mt. Calvert mansion, historic site and museum located on the Patuxent River in Upper Marlboro, received substantial structural damage…" Why not state and link to the name of this specific landmark?
 * In the second paragraph, it says, "In Dover, fire marshals and building inspectors were called to assess structures throughout the capital city." A more well-worded sentence might be: "Fire marshals and building inspectors were called to assess structures throughout Dover, the capital city." Same thing in the next sentence, which speaks of Georgetown, the seat of Sussex County.
 * At the end of the third paragraph, link to Patriot Coal.


 * Pennsylvania, New Jersey, and New York


 * In the first paragraph, it says, "The Three Mile Island nuclear plant south of Harrisburg continued to operate during the earthquake." Since the four sentences preceding this one talk about damage and people evacuating buildings, it would be nice to include a however to differentiate from this sentence.
 * The second-to-last sentence in this paragraph is, "The Pennsylvania Department of Transportation conducted inspections on bridges across the state to check for possible damage." I propose slightly less wording: "The Pennsylvania Department of Transportation inspected bridges across the state for damage."
 * In the second paragraph, it says, "In Burlington, Temple B'nai Israel's 1801 synagogue building sustained some water damage…" Be a bit more clear about this water damage.


 * New England


 * Link to Massachusetts Emergency Management Agency.


 * Midwestern states


 * Link to Columbus, Ohio and Detroit, Michigan in the same style as the wikilink to New Haven, Connecticut in the previous section.
 * In the second paragraph, it says, "Tremors from the earthquake were also felt in Detroit, Michigan as far north as Saginaw, and as far west as communities on Lake Michigan." Saginaw isn't that far north in Michigan, so I wouldn't stress its geographic location. Also, there needs to be a comma after "Detroit, Michigan."


 * Canada


 * In the first paragraph, be a bit more specific about the "precautionary measures," eliminate the extra space after "Sudbury" and cite reference 88 at the end of the paragraph before citing the other two references.
 * Since the second paragraph is only one sentence long, it should be combined with the first paragraph. Also, avoid beginning a sentence with a numeral.


 * Internet activity and social media


 * I believe there is no hyphen needed in the first sentence, and I think web site is one word.
 * In the second paragraph, there is no need to state the years of events that also occurred in 2011.


 * (Applies to whole article)


 * Be sure to use the WP:NBSP when the manual of style recommends using it.
 * FAC reviewers are quite particular about citation formatting, so you should use a standard method for access dates; ex. the day before the month or the month before the day. There are other minor inconsistencies, such as writing the publisher's name in italics, as well. Most of these are pointed out during the FAC and can easily be resolved then.
 * In the last paragraph of the Geology section, where the United States Geological Survey is mentioned, add the acronym USGS in parentheses and refer to the agency as such in the rest of the article.
 * More links could be added to the External links section, unless most relevant sources have been cited in the text.
 * Use the toolbox on the right-hand side of the top of this page to hunt down and resolve other issues.
 * Please make sure that the existing text includes no copyright violations, plagiarism, or close paraphrasing. For more information on this please see Wikipedia_Signpost/2009-04-13/Dispatches. (This is a general warning given in view of previous problems that have risen over copyvios.)


 * Best of luck at FAC. I hope these suggestions help bring the article closer to achieving that FA star. Jsayre64   (talk)  03:13, 23 January 2012 (UTC)