Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/1970 Tonghai earthquake/archive1

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 not promoted by SandyGeorgia 13:54, 30 January 2009 [1].

1970 Tonghai earthquake

Nominator(s): ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs/editor review)}~, Ceran^→//forge

I'm nominating this article for featured article because it is the best we can muster for this earthquake. Comprehensive as possible, this may be the shortest FA ever, but I think it meets the criterion. The prose has been worked and there's not much that can be done. Editorofthewiki should be listed as nominator (or co-nominator?) Ceran^→//forge 13:25, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I raised a big stink about some elements of this article when it came through DYK in early November, and I can say now that it's improved a lot—POV has been controlled well. I would probably support it for FA now (full disclosure 1: I made about 10 minor copyedits to the article in November; full disclosure 2: this is my first FAC message), I just have a few minor things I noticed:
- The word "offset" in the Damage and casualties section is jargon, linked to a general wiktionary page...is it possible on wikt to link to the relevant entry on the page (which I assume is the last one)? I had to scratch my head a moment to figure out what exactly "offset" meant in this context.
  - I'm not exactly sure how to link to a section on a wiktionary page... and yes, it is the last one. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs/editor review)}~ 16:54, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I presume the entire Background section is from Allen, p. 689. Since there's just one ref at the end of the paragraph, I wasn't sure (couldn't tell if the ref was "covering" the last fact only, or the whole paragraph) and had to go check the source. I don't know what FAC's standards are for duplicating references (personally, I would repeat the same footnote a couple times in that section, but I dunno), so I'll leave that up to someone else to decide.
  - Yeah, that ref is covering the whole section. I've been criticised for repeating refs too often, and I believe one ref to cover a paragraph is FA standard referencing. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs/editor review)}~ 16:54, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The sentence "China broke its silence in response to a planned memorial service for survivors and relatives held on January 5 in Yuxi" in the Reaction section seemed a bit awkward to me; I can pretty much tell what it's trying to say, but it could be reworded to flow better. I didn't touch it for now, though, because the impression I got from the source was that the PRC spokesperson announced the quake after the memorial service...so is it accurate to say "planned memorial service" if it had already happened?
  - Changed to "China broke its silence after a memorial service for survivors and relatives was held on January 5 in Yuxi." ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs/editor review)}~ 17:05, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - I'm still a little confused about what's going on there. That news article is from 2000, not 1988, so this couldn't have been the first time China "broke its silence"—everything else says it first announced the quake stuff in '88, and just changed its numbers in 2000. The wording in our article right now seems to suggest that the memorial service is what caused China to first announce that the quake happened...which doesn't seem to be true. Politizer ^talk/_contribs 17:16, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - How about "China published the estimate after a memorial service for survivors and relatives was held in Yuxi on January 5"? ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs/editor review)}~ 18:03, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        That looks fine to me; I see you've edited in the article as well. Thanks! Politizer ^talk/_contribs 18:36, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - On a side note, I noticed that in the current revision, refs 2[2] and 9 [3] are pretty much the same thing (both by Elaine Kurtenbach of the AP, both containing the same content with minor differences in copyediting, just published in different newspapers 1 day apart)... should they be merged together somehow (by choosing just one of them, probably the Philadelphia Inquirer one, to use)? Politizer ^talk/_contribs 17:16, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - I just merged the two AP refs to one (just replaced all the Texas Star ones with Philadelphia Inquirer ones). Politizer ^talk/_contribs 17:56, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        Okay, thanks, I was just about to fuse them. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs/editor review)}~ 18:03, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The first sentence of the Reaction section, "The Chinese government sent tens of thousands Quotations from Chairman Mao Zedong books and badges in his honor to victims as part of the relief effort," was one of the major subjects of controversy when this went through DYK in November, because its source is a news article way after the fact (published 2008) and reporting on a different earthquake, while just mentioning this one as part of its intro—so it might not be technically accurate, since the author may have been using it for flowery prose, who knows. When this article was at DYK, the compromise I made was to reword that sentence as "One foreign observer characterized the Chinese government's as consisting mostly of sending," after not too long it was copyedited to something like "according to one observer, the Chinese government responded by..." which isn't a big problem since it's pretty much the same. But in this edit, Editorofthewiki restored the original wording, with the a summary of "ce," so I don't really know his rationale. I don't mind if people want to restore that wording as long as there is a good reason; I just want to know that reason.
  - I thought the reason at DYK was that the information was cited to a subscription-only site. Well, I found one that was completely free, and replaced it. Anyway, they relied on official government reports, so the information is accurate. Besides, aren't newspapers considered RS? ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs/editor review)}~ 17:52, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The sentence "Effects of the rupture were felt through seven counties and over 8,781 km (5,456 miles) away" might not be accurate....what the source says is "over an area of 5,456 square miles in central Yunnan." Politizer ^talk/_contribs 17:56, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Sorry, Ceranthor added that. Removed the incorrect assertion. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs/editor review)}~ 00:16, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Other than that, things look fine to me (I just did some minor copyediting). Politizer ^talk/_contribs 14:09, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments - sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:09, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments - Sorry, this isn't the shortest FA ever. :)
- For the record, Erick is 10 kb; this is a bit over 9. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs/editor review)}~ 00:23, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The earthquake had a magnitude of 7.7 and killed at least 15,000 people. → "The magnitude 7.7 earthquake killed at least 15,000 people."
- Actually, I kind of prefer the first... Politizer ^talk/_contribs 00:03, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - As do I. I don't see any problem with this section. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs/editor review)}~ 00:19, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The epicenter of the quake was about 121 km (75 miles) southwest of Kunming, a city of about one million at the time - One million what?
- People. Clarified. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs/editor review)}~ 00:19, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
While the Chinese official press had not released a comprehensive report, however, Reuters and the Royal Hong Kong Observatory both released information soon after the disaster - Remove "however".
- Done. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs/editor review)}~ 00:23, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
At the time of the quake, the Xinhua News Agency briefly mentioned a smaller magnitude quake but did not give information on damage or casualties. - "Give" → "provide".
- Done. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs/editor review)}~ 00:24, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Are you sure there is no more information? I understand that the earthquake was not publicized, but surely there's more information regarding the 15,000 fatalities.

–Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 23:50, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- I discovered the original Reuters report, which added about one senench of information, but hey, that's something. I also added to the lead a bit. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs/editor review)}~ 00:46, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as per WP:NOTNOW, which translates into 1b in WIAFA-speak.
Editor(s) need to spend much more time researching, and be creative when doing so. If search terms "Tonghai" and "earthquake" don't yield much info, try "Yunnan" and "earthquake" or "Red river fault" or... etc. I found:
damage estimates and injury figures in Early Warning Systems for Natural Disaster Reduction By Jochen Zschau, Andreas N. Küppers.
- Added. We already have a damage estimate. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs/editor review)}~ 00:40, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The scientific aspect of this article is covered weakly; see your own source plus "Rupture complexity of the 1970 Tonghai and 1973 Luhuo earthquakes, China, from P-wave inversion, and relationship to surface faulting" by Allen, Clarence R.; Kanamori, Hiroo; Zhou Hui-Lan. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America (0037-1106) 19831201. Vol.73,Iss.6;p.Part A, 1585-1597.
- Added. Ceran^→//forge 01:29, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"China Yunnan-Sichuan is perhaps the most seismically active region of China... characterized by shallow strike-slip faulting.. two fault lines.. this subregion highest within China... etc. "　Earthquake Engineering Handbook By Wai-Fah Chen, Charles Scawthorn.
- I added anything that I considered useful from that source. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs/editor review)}~ 01:41, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
90% of buildings destroyed, more fatality figures etc. "Non-linear Static and Cyclic Analysis of Steel Frames with Semi-rigid Connections" By S. L. Chan, P. P. T. Chui
found latitude and longitude in various sources
- Added. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs/editor review)}~ 01:09, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I found an armful of Chinese-language journal articles that can be acquired and translated.
Ling.Nut ^{(talk—WP:3IAR)} 22:57, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I disagree with the withdrawal, as main author and article writer. I'll work to adrss the issues, but over the course of the FAC. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs/editor review)}~ 00:34, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not withdrawn, sorry. Ling, please provide said 'Chinese' links. Ceran^→//forge 01:29, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

1b, comprehensive: please convince us why no more than 1,000 words can be written abut a modern earthquake that killed more than 15,000 people. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:31, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Ling'll send me some sources to add, but basically the reasoning behind it is that the Chinese government has refused to provide much information on the quake even now. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs/editor review)}~ 01:41, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Dabs; please check the disambiguation links identified in the toolbox. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:35, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Google book search, for anyone interested. Dabomb87 (talk) 02:00, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Considering Dabomb87's book list, and Ling's additional sources, I suggest withdrawing the article until it's ready. FAC is backlogged, and carrying an article that needs to still encompass many other sources isn't the best use of FAC resources. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:29, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not many of the Google books can be found at libraries, as they are more of an official report type of thing. Can't we at last let this run the full week? We wouldn't be having these problems, after all, if PR wasn't backlogged. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs/editor review)}~ 12:03, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

PR isn't backlogged, which has nothing to do with this anyway. If you can't get people to review articles at PR, then you need to approach people who know about FAC and personally ask them to review. How likely is it that you can incorporate the new sources in a week (especially if they are not at your library)? If it is pretty unlikely, then you ought to withdraw the FAC. Karanacs (talk) 16:36, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose for now, due to comprehensiveness issues. For 15,000 deaths, surely there's more information to be found. I've written twice this much on tropical cyclones that haven't killed anybody. I understand that tropical cyclones are different than earthquakes, and that the earthquake struck an area with little media coverage, but that Google books link confirms my concerns. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 01:20, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I'm withdrawing. I wish my library wasn't so crappy and it didn't take 10 days at the minimum for books to arrive. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs/editor review)}~ 17:37, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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