Wikipedia:Peer review/1970 Tonghai earthquake/archive1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

1970 Tonghai earthquake[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because it was pretty much a collaborative work between User:Editorofthewiki and I, he did the expansion, but I created it and copy edited it. I want to bring it to FA status.

Thanks, Ceran →(cheerchime →carol) 14:37, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

  • Comments from Juliancolton (talk · contribs)
  • The earthquake, on the other hand, had a magnitude of 7.7 and killed at least 15,000 people. - No need for "on the other hand".
  • done. Ceran →(cheerchime →carol) 15:57, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
  • The earthquake, which occurred during the height of the Cultural Revolution, was not widely publicized by the Chinese government for several decades. - Is 18 years really several decades?
  • Yunnan Province has seen some of the most earthquakes of any province in China. - "Seen" → "experienced".
  • I was going to change this but couldn't find a synonym. Changed to endured. Ceran →(cheerchime →carol) 16:00, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
  • The earliest earthquake recorded there was in the 9th century, and strong ones have been observed since the 15th century. - This would read better as "The earliest recorded earthquake there was in the 9th century; strong ones have been observed since the 15th century.".
  • Done, though I tweaked your sentence a little. Ceran →(cheerchime →carol) 16:02, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
  • It was located in a tobacco growing region. - This sentence is a tad choppy. Is it possible to merge it into another sentence?
  • It caused 31 miles (50 km) of surface faulting on the Tonghai Fault. - A bit of jargon here; what's "surface faulting"?

Good work, overall. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 15:55, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

  • some of the most earthquakes - if its the most then some of is redundant if not contradictory. ϢereSpielChequers 16:32, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Yup, noticed that before too. Changed to many earthquakes, making it one the most seismically active... Ceran →(cheerchime →carol) 16:35, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
population figures for Kunming especially differ from those in our articles on those cities. If thats because cities have grown or shrunk since then it is worth saying "which then had a population of". "Effects of the rupture were felt through seven counties and over 5,456 miles (8,781 km) away", I thought at first that maybe counties was a typo for countries, but there are more than 7 in that radius. Is it possible that damage/casualties were spread over 7 counties and the tremor was felt over 5,456 miles (8,781 km) away? ϢereSpielChequers 16:53, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
I guess, I'll consult Ed. Ceran →(cheerchime →carol) 16:56, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
Definitely at the time. Clarified. ~EDDY (talk/contribs/editor review)~ 17:52, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
How many people lost their homes? Also after this length of time it would be nice to know how the reconstruction went - x thousand homes destroyed or rendered uninhabitable of which Y were reconstructed within z months (including w thousand on safer more stable sites). It should also be possible to put in some context such as the area's population has subsequently increased by xxx% The following major HydroElectric schemes have been built or are under consideration in the area, or close to the fault. ϢereSpielChequers 17:13, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
The Chinese government didn't disclose much information, such as the amount of homes destroyed or how long the reconstruction lasted. I honestly don't see why we should talk about the area's population, because this article is about the quake itself. The only reason I mentioned the earthquake monitering system was because the 1970 Tonghai earthquake was cited as inspitation. Will clarify. ~EDDY (talk/contribs/editor review)~ 17:56, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
I guess that's the nub of natural disaster articles. Some of us are mainly interested in how they effected people, others in how they effected the planet. IMHO a comprehensive article on a natural disaster should cover both. ϢereSpielChequers 19:15, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
And that is what we have attempted to do. The article, however, should only cover things that happened in the area in the aftermath if they are related to the quake. ~EDDY (talk/contribs/editor review)~ 23:31, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch comments: As requested, here are some suggestions for improvement. It seems to me this needs a lot of work to get to FA, one of the WP:WIAFA criteria is comprehensiveness and this seems a bit sparse for an earthquake that killed over 15,000 people.

  • The lead should be expanded per WP:LEAD. The lead should be an accessible and inviting overview of the whole article. Nothing important should be in the lead only - since it is a summary, it should all be repeated in the body of the article itself (so not sure about the note in the lead). My rule of thumb is to include every header in the lead in some way.
  • Since this is an article about China, which uses the metric system, metric units should come first per the MOS.
  • 1970 was in the 20th century, not the 19th. We are now in the 21st century.
  • done. Ceran →(cheerchime →carol) 13:05, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
  • A few ideas for expansion if possible: Where were most of the casualties? How many were injured? How many buildings destroyed and how many people made homeless?
  • The language is not up to the professional level required for FA. One example: Evidence was collected over a broad area of almost 1400 towns, respectively.[8] The respectively is not needed
  • This sentence is troublesome: Government officials from China released a different estimate in 2000, putting the death toll at around 15,000.[6] - a more specific number is given earlier, so why not here? Also, in what context did this new estimate occur? See WP:PCR

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 03:47, 3 January 2009 (UTC)