Talk:2020 Sparta earthquake/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Nominator: Dora the Axe-plorer (talk · contribs) 00:20, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: TonyTheTiger (talk · contribs) I will review this.14:01, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Would it be appropriate to use any of the numbers in the aftermath section in the unused "damages" parameter of the infobox?-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 14:10, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relief fund are not damage estimate I won't include Dora the Axe-plorer (explore) 16:50, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Y-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 20:29, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Should you be using inflation adjustments? E.g. Should the article say $1.17 million ($1.38 million in 2023) instead of just $1.17 million or $24 million ($28.3 million in 2023) instead of $24 million?-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 14:15, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Probably needed, it's already 5 years and considerable inflation between then and now. Dora the Axe-plorer (explore) 17:36, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Y-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 20:29, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Do we have a article for the previous 2011 quake that you could include?-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 14:18, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry, it is in the LEAD. Remember the WP:LEAD is suppose to summarize the main body. Anything in the LEAD should have greater detail in the main body (or from the other perspective the LEAD is a summary of what is in the main body).-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 14:20, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  It was already in the body section Dora the Axe-plorer (explore) 17:49, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  - N-The word Virginia is only in the LEAD (and infobox). I don't see it in the main body.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 21:30, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Added Virginia Dora the Axe-plorer (explore) 02:27, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Make sure all details in the LEAD have greater detail in the main body.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 14:21, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
A secion on the region's geological history has been added. Basically a summary of the Geology section Dora the Axe-plorer (explore) 17:19, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This includes the first sentence of the Earthquake section. It should begin a paragraph with greater detail than is in the LEAD.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 14:24, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The entire section is already detailed-rich. I've retitled the headers to address that. Dora the Axe-plorer (explore) 17:24, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
OK, lets start with the first three sentences "The 2020 Sparta earthquake occurred in North Carolina on August 9 at 08:07 EDT. The epicenter of this relatively uncommon intraplate earthquake was near the small town of Sparta, Alleghany County. The thrust-faulting earthquake had a moment magnitude of 5.1, occurring at a shallow depth of 4.7 miles (7.6 km)" What is that summarizing. IMO, those sentences should be in the main body and the first sentence should be "The 2020 Sparta earthquake was a 5.1 magnitude that earthquake occurred on August 9 in with an epicenter near Sparta, North Carolina." which summarizes those two sentences. currently 08:07 and August 9 are not even mentioned in the main body. Including facts in the LEAD that are not in the main body fails WP:MOS. MOS:LEAD is a guideline that must be followed.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 20:27, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep in mind MOS:LEAD is suppose to be accessible. That means average readers should be able to understand it. Please reserve some of your expert jargon for the main body. Please reassess each fact in the LEAD and make sure it is in the main body. This is especially important for you because you have chosen the uncited lead style. Either you can cite every fact in the article or you can cite every fact in the main body, with the assumption that all facts in the LEAD have greater detail in the main body with proper WP:ICs from WP:RS to enable WP:V. Right now I can't even verify that the event happened when you said because the time and date are not even in the main body. I should be able to read any fact in the LEAD and find it in the main body in a paragraph with a citation backing that fact.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 20:35, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I've cleared the technical bits of the lede, will add in some citations to make them verifiable since some citations are already present. Dora the Axe-plorer (explore) 03:09, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Done adding the inline Dora the Axe-plorer (explore) 03:27, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I may have been unclear. Totally uncited LEAD is OK. Choice is either all facts in LEAD cited or uncited. Every fact in the LEAD must be a summary of a fact in the main body where fully cited facts with ICs from RSs are mandatory. You did not have to add citations to the LEAD. I personally prefer to create fully uncited. No need to change that style in the future. If every fact is in a citation in the LEAD that is fine too. It is just a lot of extra work, IMO. The LEAD looks good now.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 07:10, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Y-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 07:10, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Also, section headings should be more helpful. I would change Techtonic Setting to Background. The reader who is trying to find out information knows whether they are looking for Background, Earthquake, Impact or Aftermath. Very few know what to make of Tectonic Setting as a section title.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 21:03, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've changed it because I don't think it's a big deal to retitle "Background" but please elaborate; "Tectonic setting" / "Geological background" / "Geology" is a standard header title in many earthquake articles and no editor/reviewer has raised issues previously Dora the Axe-plorer (explore) 02:21, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Checking MOS:HEADINGS, where I expected a stated preference for easily understood headings, no such preference exists. My personal preference would be for the more accessible choice, but if there is broad and consistent styling within WP:QUAKE editorial participants to do otherwise, I guess it is OK.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 13:46, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I checked in at WP:VPP and there is no guidance on section headings, but they pointed out the general WP:MTAU guideline, which you should keep in mind.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 05:47, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Y-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 05:47, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
For an article of this length, please make sure each section of the article is summarized in the LEAD.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 14:29, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
BTW, Keep some of these comments in mind if you ever renominate 1920 Xalapa earthquake or any other subject for FA.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 14:29, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I am requesting Pre-FAC comments right now if you want to help out Dora the Axe-plorer (explore) 17:34, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Good Article review progress box

Criteria: 1a. prose () 1b. MoS () 2a. ref layout () 2b. cites WP:RS () 2c. no WP:OR () 2d. no WP:CV ()

3a. broadness () 3b. focus () 4. neutral () 5. stable () 6a. free or tagged images () 6b. pics relevant ()

Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked are unassessed

Be advised, that the first paragraph of the main body has a group of references at the end of the paragraph to cover the paragraph. This is the minimal level of associated facts with citations. Although it gives the reader a shot at WP:V, it might not fly at FAC. It is preferred that each individual fact have a WP:IC rather than have a paragraph of related facts all be generally covered by a set of sources more generally.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 05:52, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]