Talk:1985 Mexico City earthquake

1985 Mexico City earthquake was a Geography and places good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
October 11, 2008	Peer review	Reviewed
January 29, 2009	Good article nominee	Not listed

A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on October 13, 2008.

The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that after the 1985 Mexico City earthquake (destroyed building pictured), a number of infants were safely rescued from the Juárez Hospital despite being without food and water for seven days?

Current status: Former good article nominee

WikiProject Earthquakes

(Rated B-class, High-importance)

	This article is part of WikiProject Earthquakes, a project to systematically present information on earthquakes, seismology, plate tectonics, and related subjects. If you would like to participate, you can choose to edit the article attached to this page (see Wikipedia:Contributing FAQ for more information), or join by visiting the project page.
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

WikiProject Mexico

(Rated B-class, Top-importance)

	Mexico portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Mexico, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Mexico on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day section on September 19, 2007, September 19, 2008, September 19, 2009, September 19, 2010, September 19, 2011, September 19, 2015, and September 19, 2019.

Unverifiable[edit]

Added references to the Cocos Plate subduction zone and liquefaction. Added link to pictures at National Geophysical Data Center.

hahahahaa verify the comments below and removed them. If the comments can be substantiated, please reinstate with citations.

The soft sediments of these buildings (made from mud and sand) and the negligence of some businessmen and architects of not using the adequate structures were the reasons these buildings collapsed. (I could not verify the culpability of businessmen and architects.) many people were very hurt

The rescue workers saved more than 4,000 lives, including newborns from the hospital.

I removed the following comment because my sources indicated it was incorrect - the epicenter was off the coast.

The epicenter of the quake was in Michoacán.

Dougz1 18:05, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Link failure[edit]

Both external links in this article return 404 errors. I don't have time to search for the new links at the moment - will try to get back soon to do it, but if someone else feels inclined to make the changes before then, feel free. Ahrie (talk) 16:30, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

2008 expansion[edit]

Please dont freak out... I put a lot of work into the rewrite of this page. Still needs work... Because I have verifiable sources for the info... I put in that the army was protecting factories and factory equipment instead of workers and that many buildings fell because of bad construction. However, I have issues with both of these assertions. For the first, my boyfriend (a Mexican who lived thru the quake) disputes the issue with the Army.. saying that while there might have been cases of this... he doubts it was widespread as the army has a fairly good reputation here. For the second... all the sources I found that push the idea of corruption causing non-compliance and shoddy construction comes from social science sources, not scientific ones. The scientific ones push the fact that it was a really unusually strong quake and more building should have fallen. Will keep looking.Thelmadatter (talk) 14:25, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

When done, you could always send it to Wikipedia:Peer review for comments. Punkmorten (talk) 21:29, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment[edit]

Royally reworked... hard to find information in Mexico.... amazingly... had no problems getting information "everybody knew", like the destruction of the garment factory, but when it came to getting citable sources, another matter! Thelmadatter (talk) 17:05, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:1985 Mexico City earthquake/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

I will be happy to take on the GAC review for this claim. H1nkles (talk) 19:58, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review Philosophy[edit]

When I do an article review I like to provide a Heading-by-Heading breakdown of suggestions for how to make the article better. It is done in good faith as a means to improve the article. It does not mean that the article is not GA quality, or that the issues listed are keeping it from GA approval. I also undertake minor grammatical and prose edits. After I finish this part of the review I will look at the over arching quality of the article in light of the GA criteria and make my determination as to the overall quality of the article. H1nkles (talk) 20:01, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

GA Checklist[edit]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

{{subst:#if:|

|}}

Is it well written?
A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
{{subst:#if:The article just needs a little prose cleaning. Remove some awkward wording and disconnected references to other parts of the article.|The article just needs a little prose cleaning. Remove some awkward wording and disconnected references to other parts of the article.|}}

B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
{{subst:#if:Need to combine/expand stub paragraphs|Need to combine/expand stub paragraphs|}}
Is it verifiable with no original research?
A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:
{{subst:#if:||}}

B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:
{{subst:#if:||}}

C. It contains no original research:
{{subst:#if:||}}

D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
{{subst:#if:|{{{2dcom}}}|}}
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
{{subst:#if:||}}

B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
{{subst:#if:||}}
Is it neutral?
It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
{{subst:#if:A couple of questionable POV statements need to be addressed.|A couple of questionable POV statements need to be addressed.|}}
Is it stable?
It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
{{subst:#if:||}}
Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:
{{subst:#if:Lead photo should be better.|Lead photo should be better.|}}

B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
{{subst:#if:||}}
Overall:
Pass or Fail:
{{subst:#if:The article is very close, but no response to suggestions to fix requires me to fail it. Please fix and renominate. H1nkles (talk) 16:23, 29 January 2009 (UTC)|The article is very close, but no response to suggestions to fix requires me to fail it. Please fix and renominate. H1nkles (talk) 16:23, 29 January 2009 (UTC)|}}[reply]

Regarding Lead[edit]

For an article of such length, the lead seems oddly brief. There is no mention, for example, of structures and historic sites that were effected. There is also no mention of the effects of the earthquake outside of Mexico and its over-arching legacy in Mexican history. Per WP:LEAD the lead can be up to 3 paragraphs and should provide a good summary of the article. I think the lead should be expanded to include more info, albeit in a summary fashion, from the article.
This quote is confusing to me, "...followed by two aftershocks: one on 21 September 1985 of magnitude 7.5 and the third occurring seven months later on 30 April 1986 of magnitude 7.0." You say there are two aftershocks, but then you refer to the second one as "third". Can you clarify for me?
Per WP:UNITS please list both metric and imperial units of measurement. H1nkles (talk) 20:52, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The photo at the top of the article is a very poor quality picture to lead off an article. What about replacing it with the one of the collapsed office building? Just a suggestion. You do need a caption for this photo if you intend to use it here.
In the table to the right of the lead you mention casualties as 10,000 dead. Since you indicate that this number is controversial you should list casualties as approx. 10,000 so as to acknowledge the potential discrepencies in the data. H1nkles (talk) 20:57, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the seismic event[edit]

You indicate twice here how far Mexico City is away from the epicenter, once is enough and again it should be listed in both metric and imperial units of measurement, with metric first.
Quote, "The main temblor was foreshown by a quake of magnitude 5.2 on 28 May 1985 (magnitude 5.2), and was followed by two significant aftershocks: one on 20 September 1985 of magnitude 7.5 lasting thirteen seconds and the third occurring seven months later on 30 April 1986 with magnitude 7.0 lasting ten seconds.[2]" I don't know what "temblor" is, is it a type-o or a vocab word I'm unfamiliar with? Also you again refer to the 30 April quake as the third quake, I'm confused how it could be the third. "foreshown" is not a good word to use here, consider rewording the first section of this quote to flow better.
"The energy released" paragraph is a stub, consider combining with the one beneath it as they are related.
Last time I'll say it, add imperial units of measure to your meatric units. H1nkles (talk) 21:10, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding Mexico City's vulnerability to earthquakes[edit]

The paragraph starting with "On the bed of the historic lake..." is a stub paragraph, please either expand or combine with another paragraph.
Remove the word "unfortunately" from the paragraph about seismic pitch. It isn't proper for editors to give opinions or place value judgements in their article. Even though there really isn't an issue of POV, it's still not encyclopedic.
Overall this section is well written for GA quality. I suggest only these minor fixes. H1nkles (talk) 17:05, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding Damage from the earthquake[edit]

Metro service[edit]

Consider removing this sentence, "This caused people to get out of the tunnels from wherever they were and onto the street to try to get where they were going.[16]" It is unnecessary and duplicative.
Your reference in this section is one in-line citation at the end of the section. Please reference this section better.

Damage to hospitals[edit]

What is a secondary and tertiary hospital? Are you talking about smaller clinics? This should be clarified. H1nkles (talk) 17:51, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Quote, "The National Medical Center of the Mexican Social Security Institute (IMSS) was considered the most important hospital complex in Latin America with over 2,300 beds and the largest medical library in the country." This statement must be sourced. Who considers it the most important complex in Latin America? Per WP:Weasel words this should be revised.
Quote, "The ISSSTE hospital for government workers lost 36 percent of its capacity." You spell out the IMSS acronym, please do so with ISSSTE as well.
This section is poorly referenced. You give a lot of facts and figures and one in-line citation at the end of the main paragraph. It should be better referenced.
The last paragraph is a stub and should be attached to the previous paragraph. H1nkles (talk) 18:39, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding Human toll[edit]

Quote, "Part of the explanation for that was the hour in which the earthquake struck, approximately 7:20am, when people were awake but not in the many schools and office buildings that were severely damaged." Reword "that" replace with what "that" is referring to, I think it's the relatively low death toll.
You don't need to wikilink Asia and Latin America. Those links don't really add to the article. Also you mention Latin America in the previous section but don't wikilink it. It doesn't make sense to then wikilink it later. For the most part your wikilinks are excellent, just be sure to remove ones like these two that don't really apply specifically to the content of the article.
The IMSS baseball field sentence is a stub paragraph and should be combined with YOSHI the paragraph above.
Quote, "Some sources state that more than 50,000 families lost their homes, and INEGI reports that 700,000 people in the Federal District and the suburbs in the State of Mexico lost their homes." These sources should be cited or it is another example of weasel wording. Also per above, spell out INEGI. H1nkles (talk) 18:57, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding Emergency Response[edit]

First paragraph is two sentences, consider expanding or combining.
Quote, "Patients had to be moved from damaged hospitals, especially the National Medical Center. Many of these patients were critically ill. 1,900 patients were successfully moved from here, without any deaths, in just four hours." Patients were removed from where? You say several hospitals were damaged. consider rewording. H1nkles (talk) 23:26, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding Memorable Sites[edit]

Hospital Juarez[edit]

Check tense in the first paragraph. You switch from past tense to present progressive in, "It was founded in 1847, in converting the old convent...."
What do you mean by one of the most visible? As in high profile, notable etc. Or do you mean literally the tallest/site line most visible around the city?
Quote, "Rescue workers soon arrived to take start digging through to rubble", I think there's a type-o here, sentence doesn't make sense.
Write up phonetically numbers less than ten.
Quote, "However, the most memorable story to come from this event". "The most memorable" is a matter of opinion/POV. Please remove.
Aside from the last paragraph your in-line citations consist of one cite at the end of each paragraph. Please update your facts with in-line citations throughout the paragrpahs. H1nkles (talk) 19:10, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sewing Factory[edit]

This sentence, "On Manuel José Othón Street, in the Colonia Obrera neighborhood, near Metro station San Antonio Abad, was one of the many garment factories located in the city center area." does not have a subject. The reader can infer it is the Sewing Factory but it should have a subject anyway.
The issue of the working conditions at the factory is not germaine to this subject. Your coverage of it is brief but still not really on topic. Consider removing. If you disagree please tell me your thinking on this and I will consider it.
This section has a lot of prose issues, a thorough prose massage should be done. H1nkles (talk) 19:45, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Central Communications Center[edit]

This section is fine, a little short, are there any ramifications to having no long distance communication that hampered the rescue effort or emergency response? H1nkles (talk) 16:23, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding Conjunto Pino Suárez[edit]

This section is fine. H1nkles (talk) 21:34, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding Hotel Regis[edit]

You duplicate the sentence about the only surviving wall contains a mural done by Diego Rivera. Remove the second mention of the fact and wikilink Diego Rivera in the first sentence about him.

Regarding Apartment complexes in Tlatelolco[edit]

Quote, "...it was considered the most important complex of its kind in the country." Weasel words, who considered it the most important complex of its kind in the country? Reference it if you're going to say it, otherwise remove it.
Quote, "During these rescue efforts, a nearby building, called Yucatán, began to creak noisily, causing everyone to run and abandon the site temporarily, but it did not collapse". This sentence is not very clean. "Noisily" isn't a good word to use, I'm not even sure it is a word really, and is unnecessary since you say it creaked, "noisily" seems unnecessary detail.
This section needs a thorough prose massage. Examples like this do not meet GA criteria, "All the buildings suffered damage but along with the collapsed Nuevo León building, buildings such as those called Veracruz, Yucatán and Oaxaca suffered severe damage such as severely cracked foundations."
Combine this stub paragraph, "Buildings A1, B2 and C3 of the Multifamiliar Juárez complex partially-collapsed with a total of nine structures eventually being demolished." with the one above it. H1nkles (talk) 21:43, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding Televisa studios[edit]

Again, noisily is not a good word to use.
Quote, "The studio building was reconstructed in 1995 and ended in 2000." What do you mean by, "...and ended in 2000." Do you mean contruction ended in 2000? It's not clear from the context or the sentence. H1nkles (talk) 22:06, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Other structures[edit]

This section is fine. H1nkles (talk) 22:42, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding Geological and structural engineering issues[edit]

This sentence doesn't make sense, "A survery of the damage done by the government found that few buildings from one to five stories suffered serious damage...." From the way it is written it appears as though there was a survey of the damage done by the government, in other words, the government did the damage and there was a survey done about that. Please reword.
This sentence is also poorly worded w/in the context of the paragraph, "When the buildings were built seemed to have an effect as well." Please reword.
Quote, "However, none of these regulations had an event like 1985’s in mind when passed." Regulations don't have anything "in mind". The legislators did (or in this case didn't).
Quote, "In second place were buildings from before 1957, possibly because they were weakened by the earlier earthquakes." This is another poorly worded sentence that tries to link to somewhere else in the section but it is unclear where. What was first place? I think you're talking about ranking the buildings with the most damage but the link between first and second place is lost somewhere. Consider dropping reference to second place and rewording.
A prose review of this section should be done. The review should fix these issues and more that I don't have time to list. H1nkles (talk) 22:52, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding Political Consequences[edit]

Regarding Government response[edit]

Quote, "The military was deployed to patrol streets to prevent looting after a curfew was imposed,[31] as well as rescue, sanitary efforts and other," And other what? This isn't clear.

Quote "Those belonging to the party received preference and those considered opposition received the runaround" Watch POV in this statement. Also "runaround" is not an encyclopedic word to use here, please change. You must cite this statement along with the sentence directly before it. H1nkles (talk) 22:57, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding Community response[edit]

The paragraph that starts with, "CUD and other popular movement representatives met with head of the Secretariat of Urban Development and Ecology (SEDUE) Guillermo Carrillo Arena on 27 September 1985" needs better citations within the paragraph. You list a lot of facts and information in the paragraph and have one cite at the end, please reference the information within the paragraph so that readers can do further research on specific information.
Quote, "After the government created the Programa de Renovación Habitacional Popular (PRHP) on 14 October to help deal with the crisis, friction between the government and community groups grew again, PRHP used PRI-membership as a requirement to be included into the census of damnificados." This is a runon sentencen, consider splitting.
Same citation issues in the paragraph starting with this sentence, "In March, only weeks after taking office, Camacho Solís changed the charged atmosphere between SEDUE and the community groups." H1nkles (talk) 18:02, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding Weakening of the PRI[edit]

Quote, "...and a contracting economy causing serious political programs for the PRI." I think you mean "problems" not "programs" but I'm not sure.
Quote, "President de la Madrid made relatively few public appearances afterwards and during those he did,he received strong heckling, in contrast to the near-reverence that past presidents enjoyed at such events." reword this sentence, it is awkward.
Quote, "Shortly after the event, the PRI began to face serious challenges at the polls, forcing it to rig elections, sometimes in an embarrassingly messy way." Watch POV with this statement. I can't immediately verify the source. I would strongly recommend removing allegations that the PRI rigged elections. H1nkles (talk) 18:12, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding Effects of earthquake in other parts of Mexico[edit]

This section is fine. H1nkles (talk) 18:14, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding Legacy[edit]

Three stub paragraphs (one sentence) in a row, "Despite warnings and predictions, in 2005, an estimated 32 million people live in the high-risk lakebed area.[1]

As of 2005, there are still two camps where approximately eighty families are still waiting for relocation from the earthquake.[1]

Centuries-old structures have been reinforced across the city and new construction must comply with very strict codes.[36]" that need to be combined or expanded. H1nkles (talk) 18:18, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding Torre Mayor[edit]

This section is fine, a photo of the building with be great since you describe the dampeners and that they can be seen from the exterior. H1nkles (talk) 18:20, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding Notes[edit]

On the notes that are websites try to include at least the publisher of the site. The publisher is usually pretty easy to find. The author is also good to add if one is attributed to in the article.
Your accessdates are good and fairly recent.
The Hotle Regis site is in Spanish though this isn't indicated in the Notes section. Same for the Centro de Instrumentación y Registro Sísmico, A. C., CIRES – MÉXICO" site. H1nkles (talk) 18:25, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Overall Opinion[edit]

The article is well sourced and broad in it's coverage of the topic.
As mentioned above there are a few paragraphs where the in-line citation comes at the end of the paragraph and the reader, I suppose, is to assume that all the facts in the paragraph are referenced in this citation. I strongly recommend adding in-line cites after the major assertions within the paragraph, it adds credibility and helps the reader know where to look for more information.
This article could do with a good prose edit. Nothing really glaring but just lots of little things like duplicative words, "noisily" (see above), and disconnected references to other parts of the article make it difficult to read.
Make sure your units of measurement are in both metric and imperial format.
Check a couple of the POV statements mentioned above, if you disagree with my assertion that they violate NPOV then please discuss it with me, I'm open to hearing your thoughts.
The rest of my suggestions are above, I feel as though the article is decent though it needs some polish before I can pass it. I'll put the article on hold until 1/29/09 at which point I will review for final GA determination. H1nkles (talk) 18:32, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

GA Fail[edit]

It has been two weeks since the review started and the article has been on hold for a week. There has been no movement on the article nor response to my suggestions. At this point I will have to fail it. If there is an interested editor that would like to jump in, make the fixes and renominate it then the article should pass. H1nkles (talk) 16:03, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reassesment[edit]

I believe this article deserves at least a C-class. I don't think it is GA or anything of the sort, but C would seem fine. Does anyone have any other comments? > RUL3R^>trolling_>vandalism 07:06, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nature of the quake[edit]

So the article says that the quake was some distance away from Mexico City, but because the underlying ground had a 2.5-second resonant frequency, the earthquake waves were amplified significantly. Does this mean that the earthquake (as felt in Mexico City) wasn't the typical shaking and rattling but was rather a slow rolling oscillation? -Rolypolyman (talk) 15:07, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Survivors mentioned it being more like ocean waves than anything. People mentioned getting seasick. There was a good doc. about it called Great Quakes: Mexico. It goes into some detail about it. (I think it might be on youtube). 69.122.132.127 (talk) 17:46, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]