Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/1995 Aigio earthquake/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 8 June 2023 [1].

1995 Aigio earthquake

[edit]
Nominator(s): SamBroGaming (talk) 05:00, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A destructive earthquake took place in Greece in 1995. It occurred in a zone where the maximum expected shaking over half a millenia was less than this event. It caused the strongest ground motion ever recorded in the country. Luckily, despite this, it only killed 26 people due to two buildings collapsing, and a further 200 were injured. SamBroGaming (talk) 05:00, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you to @Ceranthor: for helping me with the article. SamBroGaming (talk) 05:03, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

First-time nomination

[edit]

Image review pass (t · c) buidhe 05:27, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Few More Comments from Ceranthor

[edit]
  • I provided a lot of comments at the peer review. A few more things that are mostly minor concerns. I feel like the third and fourth paragraphs of Tectonic setting can be combined.
  • "(Mw  5.6[note 2])" - move note 2 to outside parentheses
  • Could we add a little more to the caption than "USGS ShakeMap for the event"?
  • Really nitpicky, but this is FAC after all... I notice some inconsistency in directional notation. Such as WNW in tectonic setting but then east–west in impact. Should really be consistent style throughout.
  • "Recorded 5.4 on the mb  and Ms  scales" - add a period to be consistent with note 1
  • For sources, should ideally have either all full names or all initials for authors for consistency.

Otherwise, support. ceranthor 19:51, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have addressed all issues you pointed out, except I am unsure how to combine the third and fourth paragraphs of the tectonic setting. SamBroGaming (talk) 01:12, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@SamBroGaming: The third and fourth paragraphs just need to be rewritten in such a way that they flow together as one short paragraph rather than two super short paragraphs. All the information should be retained, just rewritten in a way that they flow together. ceranthor 01:33, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Ceranthor: I have merged those two paragraphs. SamBroGaming (talk) 07:25, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Prose comments from Airship

[edit]
  • The lead could be improved significantly. At the moment, I'm not sure it meets FA criteria 1a—engaging and professional prose. The sentences are all short and staccato, it's a single paragraph which reads like a list in prose form, and there is no discernible flow or connection between sentences.
  • Agree with above—the third and fourth paragraphs of tectonic setting can be joined together.
  • "a north dipping, west-northwest trending" what does this mean? are there any helpful wikilinks?
  • I think I know what a slip rate is, but I have "strike" means. On a related note, you define "dip angle" on the second appearance.
  • "The fault reactivated during this earthquake. It showed surface rupturing and produced its largest aftershock." Which fault? Offshore? Onshore? The whole thing? What does "its" refer to—the earthquake or the fault?
  • "where the sea moved 2–3 m (6 ft 7 in – 9 ft 10 in) closer to land." can the sea move closer to the land?
  • I'm not sure about the relevance of the entirety of the Future hazard section. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:32, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • For the lead, other than making the sentences flow together, is there any other solution you'd recommend?
    • For the future hazard section, I think it is important to highlight potential threats of a similar type in the region, as a portion of the significance of this quake is from the extreme shaking—well over the 1 in 400 year expected max in the brand new Greek seismic guidelines.
    For the rest of your concerns, I will go in and fix them. Thank you for taking the time to look at the article. SamBroGaming (talk) 03:17, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @AirshipJungleman29 I have gone through and revised the issues outlined other than fixing the flow of the lead. Thank you for pointing them out. SamBroGaming (talk) 03:10, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
AirshipJungleman29 ? Gog the Mild (talk) 19:05, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
SamBroGaming, take a look at the leads of the Category:FA-Class WikiProject Earthquakes articles. I would suggest two paragraphs, with one focusing on geological information, and the other focusing on human impact and response. Sorry for the delay Gog ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 10:19, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
AirshipJungleman29 I have taken a look at those articles, and changed the lead here to flow better and more resemble the other FAs. Hopefully the phrasing is less awkward now. SamBroGaming (talk) 02:23, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Much better. Support ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:32, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

[edit]

Spotchecks not done

  • Redundancies in citations, eg "United States Geological Survey. United States Geological Survey.", should be avoided
  • Don't mix {{citation}} and {{cite web}}
  • Be consistent in when you include retrieval date
  • What makes Bouckovalas a high-quality reliable source?
  • While the academic literature cited is extensive, I'm surprised to see almost no popular/media sources - these usually discuss impacts left out of the academic literature. Do you feel the current sourcing provides comprehensiveness? Nikkimaria (talk) 20:57, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, thank you for taking time to review this article.
  • Citations are not my strongest suit, so how would I revise the redundancy to meet the citation guidelines?
  • I will get rid of all {{citation}} tags.
  • By that do you mean have an access date for every single reference?
  • Not necessarily. You need to have a consistent "rule" for yourself - you put them in this case but not that one. You could make that every single reference has them, but you don't have to do that as long as you come up with something else that is consistent. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:53, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Honestly, I'm not too sure what exactly makes him super highly reliable, or if he is at all. It is unfortunately the only reference I found with the specific values it provides.
  • I'm also not very good with non academic literature type sources. What should I be looking to incorporate within the article? I feel it does provide the scientific aspect quite well, and I am not sure what could be added outside of it. I will look into that though, thanks. SamBroGaming (talk) 03:47, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd suggest looking at similar articles which are already featured to get an idea of what the balance is. (Usually the problem is the other way around - too few scientific publications - so keep that in mind when looking). Nikkimaria (talk) 03:53, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi SamBroGaming, how are you doing with getting these points addressed? Gog the Mild (talk) 18:18, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hello @Gog the Mild:, unfortunately these past couple weeks have been far busier than I expected initially, but now I should have time to fully look into the suggestions. tldr: I'll be done with the listed suggestions by next weekend. SamBroGaming (talk) 20:51, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nikkimaria I have now gone through the citations and changed all citation s to cite|web s, and removed the retrieval dates as it seemed like the best way to have consistency for me. As for Bouckovalas, his work was published through one of the leading technical universities of Greece, and I think that would be reliable enough to include in the article. SamBroGaming (talk) 02:27, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The work in question was published on CiteSeerX, an open repository, not through a Greek university. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:35, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
In that case, I will remove that source and rewrite the section to have info without it. Thank you for catching that oversight. SamBroGaming (talk) 22:15, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nikkimaria I have now gone through the sources and removed Bouckovalas while supplanting as much information I could with better sources. Thank you for pointing out the issue with the source. SamBroGaming (talk) 07:01, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Since I forgot to mention, I do think the academic sources do a good job of covering the earthquake, and I don't think more mainstream references are necessary here. SamBroGaming (talk) 02:56, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Nikkimaria, how is this one now? Gog the Mild (talk) 20:52, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Formatting is fine; not convinced on the comprehensiveness question. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:49, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
SamBroGaming ? Gog the Mild (talk) 16:10, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nikkimaria & Gog the Mild I have searched the internet for more mainstream references and I struggled to find any references other than a NYTimes listing which had less up to date info than other sources. Therefore, I do think the scientific articles cover everything there really is to say about this event as it is more significant from a scientific interest context rather than a more mainstream coverage context. SamBroGaming (talk) 02:33, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Harry

[edit]

This is very well written on the whole. Just a few nits to pick:

  • The Aigion fault is a north dipping, west-northwest trending (fault direction), relatively young fault, that has been rapidly growing: "north dipping" probably needs to be hyphenated as compound adjective; relative to what?; what is that last comma doing?
  • Reports of a "bright red glow" took place shortly before I'm not sure a report "takes place"
  • Thousands of aftershocks were recorded daily for how long?
  • The earthquake caused 26 deaths and 60–200 injuries can we expand on the wide discrepancy in the injury numbers?
  • It also left 4,000 people homeless,[8] with 2,100 homeless in Aigio alone using ", with" to join two clauses like that is ungrammatical, even if it's popular in journalistic copy. When the two clauses are this closely related, a comma or dash is adequate, or you could use "of which".
  • Aigio and Eratini sustained substantial damage,[2] with most occurring in northern Aigio. same problem as above; just removing the "with" here will solve the problem and improve the sentence flow.
  • between 1,071 and 1,887 houses were damaged beyond repair Again, this discrepancy is a little confusing without clarification
  • The event was felt in Athens, Ioannina, Kalamai, Kardhitsa, Kozani, and Kefallinia If it's possible, I might help to know roughly how far away some of these places are
  • ceased a week after the earthquake,[37] with 68 people having been rescued ", with" again
  • Italy also offered to deploy 20 houses for 100 people How do you deploy a house? And was the offer accepted?
  • Earthquake activity along the Aigion fault is well recorded, with events taking place in 1748 ", with"

That's it from me but I've only really looked at prose. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:06, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

HJ Mitchell I have addressed every single one of the points made. Thank you for taking the time to look through the article. SamBroGaming (talk) 03:20, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support on prose. Like I said, it's very well-written and all the nits I picked have been addressed. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:01, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

[edit]

Reviewing this version. Right up front, there's only a few Greek sources for an earthquake in Greece. Also, the source stock is almost entirely academic sources - is there anything in newspapers, government reports etc. from the time that would be worth adding? - with no page numbers given.

Jo-Jo, English language and academic sources are preferred. There is no particular reason why either Greek or non-academic sources have to be used. Unless, obviously, they contain information meriting inclusion not available elsewhere. Equally obviously, page numbers do need to be included. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:38, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"Preferred", sure, but when I see one Greek-language source for an earthquake in Greece I have to wonder about how complete the literature survey (Wikipedia:Featured article criteria §1c) was. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 14:16, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Otherwise:

  • Where on #2 is the MMI stated?
  • Where on #24 does it say that it was the largest aftershock?
  • #29's death toll adds up to 27 tourists, not 26 as stated in the article.
  • #36 is fine, but I don't think you need three consecutive cites to the same source. One citation at the end of the text block it supports seems OK. Same for #41 and some other sources.
  • #43 does not mention Eliki anywhere; also, one of the sentences sourced to it lacks a period.
  • #40 has the issue of #36 and also that I can't find the taller buildings thing.
  • I don't see information in the article from the first two #19 citations.
  • #4 gives an acceleration of 0.5g, not 0.54g as in the infobox. Where does it say that it stabilized the Helike fault? Is the 1888 event on the Helike or the Aigion fault?
  • #13 seems to talk about the Eliki fault(s) not the Aigion one?
  • #8 where does it say 4000 homeless? Also, the 1888 earthquake was in the Aigio area, not the fault.
  • #15 I have difficulty finding the reference to the fault's growth.
  • AGFing on #30, #28, #23 and #16 as I don't have access to them.
  • #31 is a bit overly similar to the article text, and "normal faulting" in the article text sourced to it reads a bit out of place. Where does the source mention oceanographic analysis?
  • #10 where is 443?

Everything else seems OK. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:25, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

SamBroGaming ? Gog the Mild (talk) 13:38, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, and thank you for taking the time to review the article. This seems to be a very thorough review, so I appreciate that. For the Greek sources, I do not speak Greek, however I did do a search for relevant Greek literature and I could not find anything useful that had new information not already included in the article.
  • It is under the "Impact" section.
  • #7 had that information, and I clarified that now.
  • While that is true, their death count is also 26 when you see how many names they have listed out in remembrance. All other sources in English also report 26 deaths. However, this does mean that their count of 11 French is suspect or a typo, so I am not sure how to proceed. English sources universally report 26 dead, so there is a discrepancy.
  • Thank you for pointing that out. Fixed.
  • That's what #11 was for. I used information from both sources in one sentence there. The missing period was fixed though.
  • It is mentioned just above the town revision section as well as in the conclusions and recommendations section.
  • For the first one you are correct, however the second use the other ref isn't being used, so I removed that one instead.
  • Also managed to slip through the cracks. #8 supports 0.54, so removing #4 should be fine. Source 4 says "Second, concerning the short term seismic hazard, the occurrence of the two recent moderate earthquakes (Aigion, 1995; Galaxidi, 1992) may have increased the probability of a large earthquake on the Aigion fault and possibly on the Psathopyrgos fault, but not on the Helike fault, most probably relaxed by the 1995 rupture."
  • #13 talks about the Aigion fault for all of them, however the number it gives for depth is in between the range in the article. I still cited it, though maybe I should remove it?
  • Not sure where I got that, but I addressed that. 1888 was on the western eliki fault according to #18, so I fixed that.
  • I forgot where I got rapidly from so I have removed that wording, however at the end of #15: "Processes involved in Egion fault growth fall into the model of 'growth by segment linkage'."
  • Appreciate it
  • I agree the normal faulting seems redundant, removed. Oceanographic analysis is mentioned a few times, for example: "However, indications of large slides along the coasts of Egio and Erateini were provided mainly by coastline retreat, turbidization of seawater and change in the sea bottom relief (the latter was maintained by local fishermen). Proof to this came later by oceanographic surveys by Papatheodorou and Ferentinos (in press) and Chronis et al. (1997). The former in particular studied extensively the submarine slides and gave detailed descriptions of the phenomenon, providing comprehensive analysis of their types and mechanisms." Where is the text too similar to the article btw?
  • Look at Figure 7 in the ref. It doesn't show up when you ctrl + f it, but the number appears from the figure itself.
Anyway, thank you for all of the suggestions, and it's very clear you took a good look at the article. Thank you so much for doing so. I appreciate it. Let me know how to fix a couple of the minor issues I had with your suggestions, and let me know if you have any more comments/concerns. SamBroGaming (talk) 06:08, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If there is a discrepancy in casualty numbers, you might want to put a footnote where you explain the discrepancy. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:14, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have added the note addressing casualty numbers. I need to add page numbers now, but other than that I believe I have addressed every concern you have brought up. Thank you again for taking the time to look over the article. SamBroGaming (talk) 00:32, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Jo-Jo, are we GTG re. source review and spotcheck? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 18:25, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Probably yes, if I can find the statement on why there is only one Greek source again. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 18:45, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Jo-Jo Eumerus The reason for the seeming lack of Greek sources is that the English sources do not lack information. Using translate, the relevant literature in English covers the same content as the Greek sources do with the benefit of being already English. SamBroGaming (talk) 07:52, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I presume you did check for Greek sources? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:07, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I did while writing the article, however since it has undergone large revision I went back and looked again. I did not find anything of use other than sources which clarify the death count, so I replaced the other Greek language source that had contradictory information with a Greek source that was very clear on the breakdown of deaths by nationality. It also mentions the rescue of a young child who survived for a while under the rubble so I added that to the impact section. SamBroGaming (talk) 01:11, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That seems OK, then. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 04:45, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/1995_Aigio_earthquake/archive1&oldid=1159212802"