Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/1968 Illinois 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 not promoted by Karanacs 16:51, 30 June 2009 [1].

1968 Illinois earthquake[edit]

Nominator(s): ceranthor 01:34, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Toolbox

I am nominating this for featured article because since creating it in November, I have been steadily expanding it to become a better article. It passed a GAN back in February, and after a prose review from Casliber back in April, I think that it's finally ready. Its relative shortness can be attributed to the magnitude of the quake, in fact, it wouldn't be notable save for the fact that it was the strongest earthquake in Illinois history. ceranthor 01:34, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport

  • "Took place on" in the opening sentence seems a bit bland, would replacing it with "struck on" be too emotive?
  • "Foundation cracks" is an odd turn of phrase, perhaps it should be "cracks in foundations".
I replaced with structural cracks.
  • "Response to the earthquake was mixed; some did not even notice the shaking, while others panicked", is this the response of people within Illinois or the 23 states? Also, a semi-colon should be use for two related clauses that could stand as separate sentences, so I think a colon may be better here.
  • "Millions within the region felt the shaking of the tremor": "shaking" is used in the previous sentence, to avoid repetition I'd recommend changing this to "Millions within the region felt the tremor".
  • "...suggest that earthquakes in the area are of only moderate magnitude can be felt over a large area": is there an "and" missing between "magnitude" and "can"?
  • There are some conflicting figures; I changed the lead from "Since it was felt over an area of 500,000 square miles" to 580,000 per this source used in the geography section, but in the history section it again says 500,000 (I haven't changed it).
  • Clarify: the only other occasion there is a conflicting figure with 580,000 is when it is stated that "The earthquake was felt in 23 states and affected a zone of 500,000 square miles (1,300,000 km2)". This may arise from "The 1909 Aurora earthquake, for example, affected people over an area of 500,000 square miles (1,300,000km2)". Nev1 (talk) 01:28, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • From the damage section "the epicenter was located slightly south of St Louis": 120 miles might be slight by some measures, but it's probably best to remove "slightly".
  • It's mentioned that "Most buildings that experienced chimney damage were 30 to 50 years old". I think it would be worth expanding on this a little, explaining that older buildings were built to lower standards.{{cn}}
  • Was there any legislation instigated after the quake to ensure buildings could better withstand earthquakes?
  • Ceranthor has noted that there probably wasn't any legislation introduced after this event as it wasn't strong enough, if Cenrathor's searches draw a blank, that's good enough for me. Nev1 (talk) 01:31, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've made some minor changes, but you should probably check that I've not changed the meaning of anything. I haven't read one of wikipedia's articles on an earthquake before and I found this one interesting. I think that with a bit of tweaking, I could support it's promotion to FA Nev1 (talk) 16:04, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done. ceranthor 20:49, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd like to see a sentence added on why the older buildings were damaged in the quake while newer ones were not, but this is a very minor issue and I am happy to support the article. Nev1 (talk) 09:17, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments -
  • Newspapers titles in the references should be in italics. If you're using {{cite news}}, use the work field for the title of the paper, and the publisher field for the name of the actual company that publishes the paper.
  • Please spell out abbreviations in the notes. Yes, they are linked, but you don't want your readers to leave your article, they might never return.
  • Current ref 3 (RObert Blanchard) should be Blanchard, Robert to match the other refs
  • Current ref 16 (Some took..) is lacking a publisher and what makes this a reliable source?
I've emailed the website to see if the publishers know where the info is coming from.
Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:26, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
All done, except the last one. ceranthor 20:52, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What's the status on this last one? Ealdgyth - Talk 17:15, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I asked at your talk page... ceranthor 00:28, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
So you did, oops. I'm still unconvinced by the reliablity of this source. Any other way to source this information? Ealdgyth - Talk 00:47, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do you really want to wikilink everyone of those state names? It's a lot of blue for no value added. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:37, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It was quite tedious to do... I'll delink them. ceranthor 23:43, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nice-looking article. It appears to be pretty concise and clean, but I've just got a few comments and questions:
  • A new version of the graphic appears to be ready in the Graphics Lab, but I'm sure you're on it.
  • In the first line, you can't be both at something and around it at the same time. I'd change it, but I'm not sure which is preferred. :)
  • Structural cracks in what? Buildings? Bridges? All of the above?
  • Is there a reason for the "now" in the most-felt quakes lead sentence? I'd suggest removing it unless there's a reason for it to be there, like if some quake was moved from above it to below it on the list.
  • Do you have any information about the 1965 Illinois quake? You mention it in passing, which only made me want to know more, especially since you gave more information about the 1909 quake.
  • The last sentence of the history section seems a bit redundant since you mention two similar earthquakes right before stating that many have been felt in the same area. If the sentence is being used to explain that still others also took place in the area, I'd suggest mentioning them.
  • The article mentions that the quake also was called "New Madrid event". Was it because the quake also partially occurred on that fault? If so, it'd be nice to have a line drawn specifically from that fact to the naming.
No, it was because the event was initially thought to be on the New Madrid fault, I'll mention it in the geo section.
  • I'm unfamiliar with the term "confining stress"; could you create a stub or explain it in the article. All the other jargon terms have appropriate Wikilinks.
It means exactly what it sounds like, stress on a fault which confines the land surrounding it. It causes liquefaction in earthquakes.
  • I'd suggest Indiana accompany Evansville, since it's not quite as well known as Chicago and St. Louis. :) That, and I got dinged for a similar reason in an FAC. McLeansboro also might need an Illinois qualifier since it's mentioned right after that long list of states.
  • Since McLeansboro is a redlink, could you give at least a vague location ... something like "Mcleansboro, Illinois, X miles (X km) west of XXX"
  • I'm not sure what you want to do with Dale; you've got the second reference wikilinked, and the location accompanying that second reference probably should be moved to the first reference as well.
  • In the first sentence of the third paragraph of damage, you say the "damage reports consisted of ..."; "damage" also is used twice in that sentence. I'd suggest just making it a straightforward list.
  • In regards to the sentence that begins "A post office canvass", why was a post office performing a damage survey? Was it the U.S. Postal Service or just one local post office?
I have no idea, the reference doesn't say. ceranthor 19:34, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The last sentence of the response section seems a bit out of place. I'd suggest ending with the quote; it does a good job to illustrate the reactions.
  • In regards to the aftermath, when was the next noticeable tremor? If it doesn't warrant inclusion towards the end, I'd suggest putting it in the history section.
  • I made a handful of minor fixes to the article, mainly in regards to removing extraneous words, moving Wikilinks to first reference and minor grammatical fixes. As always, if I've made a factual error, don't hesitate to let me know so I won't do it again!

Overall, it's a bit short, but it appears to cover the subject adequately and in an appropriate fashion. Drop me a line when you've made changes, and I'll be happy to take another look. JKBrooks85 (talk) 11:29, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

All done. ceranthor 19:37, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I added a threats section not because the article wasn't comprehensive, but because several other editors and myself agreed that it would help explain the article a lot better. ceranthor 18:03, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I don't see any problems. Like was said before, it's short, but covers its topic well. ResMar 22:04, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support — I gave the article another readthrough and made some changes. The biggest of these was to remove a redundant sentence about Dale in the damage section. The only thing from my list that I didn't see as resolved or resolve myself was the location of Mcleansboro in regards to a major city, but since it has a Wikilink, it's not critical. The article's a bit short, but that's due to the subject, not for any lack of coverage. Good work by everyone who wrote it. JKBrooks85 (talk) 22:28, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose on image concerns (#3):

I believe I've done it correctly, admonish me if I have completed it incorrectly. ceranthor 00:29, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The other two images seem fine. Jappalang (talk) 22:59, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Seems okay now. I believe the above photo helps to illustrate the damage clearly, compared to words alone. The fair use rationale is adequate in my view. Jappalang (talk) 02:19, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support; yes, this meets the featured status criterion. (As an aside, I would solicit the input of the main editors of this article on a query I've raised on the article's talk page.) AGK 19:14, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • SupportComment. Ceran, could you clarify the relationship between Cottage Grove Fault and Wabash Valley Fault System? Is the fault a part of this system? Ruslik_Zero 15:41, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure I understand. Do you mean that the threats section involves the Wabash system and not the Cottage Grove Fault? ceranthor 19:14, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I meant how Cottage Fault is positioned in respect of the Wabash System. I answered this question myself. So, I am supporting now. Ruslik_Zero 10:17, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose from Maralia. This needs some work still.

Prose/MOS:

  1. "Some locals in the area" - redundant
  2. "located on the Illinois-Indiana border" - this should be an endash (it's also repeated elsewhere in the article).
    Still needs to be fixed in the lead.
  3. There is an error of some kind in the History section. The premise given is that the 1909 and 1965 quakes suggest that quakes in the area "are of only moderate magnitude and can be felt over a large area". However, the 1909 and 1968 quakes are then described as large, while the 1965 quake is presented as "contradicting this idea" despite originally being given as a reason for the premise.
    Not yet fixed.
No, no, no, that's not how it's meant! :) The 1909 and 1968 shocks were felt over a wide area but the 1965 quake was only around Tamms.
  1. The last sentence of the History section is a list that is torturous to read ("Many other earthquakes have occurred in the same region as the 1968 tremor: earthquakes in 1838, 1857, a pair of earthquakes in 1876, 1881, 1882, 1883, 1887, 1891, 1903, 1905, 1912, 1917, three earthquakes in 1922, 1934, 1939, 1947, 1953, 1955, 1958, 1972, 1974, 1984, and, most recently, the 2008 Illinois earthquake."). This needs restructuring.
    Mostly fixed, but improper use of a colon.
  2. "The earthquake occurred at the depth of 25 km." - this needs a conversion, and should probably be reversed with it for consistency of style. Additionally, it is at odds with the 19km figure in the infobox.
    The sources say 25 km, but you've changed "25 km" to "16 miles" with a conversion to 26 km. Not quite right.
  3. "A fault plane solution of the earthquake confirmed two nodal planes striking north-south" - this should be an endash.
  4. "and to a horizontal east-west axis of confining stress" - endash.
  5. "Although at that time no faults was known in the immediate epicentral region" - grammar.
  6. "the motion indicated corresponded to that along the Wabash Valley Fault System roughly 10 miles east of the region" - conversion.
  7. "However, scientists eventually realized the real cause was an unknown fault under Illinois." - 'real' is extraneous here, as 'however' makes it clear that the previous theory was incorrect.
  8. "Its local high school reported nineteen broken windows in the girls gymnasium along with cracked plaster walls." - girls' gymnasium
  9. "The damage consisted of fallen chimneys, foundation cracks, collapsed parapets, and overturned tombstones." - this is an exceedingly simplistic—or perhaps misplaced—sentence, considering that the previous two paragraphs describe fallen chimneys and foundation cracks.
  10. "The evidence of this comes from a family in Dale, Illinois, near Tuckers Corners and southwest of McLeansboro, where a home sustained cracked interior walls, plaster fell off the structure, chimneys were broken" - this sentence reads like a local news report, and 'the evidence comes from' makes it sound as though this is all the evidence. Presumably this is just one example; please present it as such.
  11. "where a home sustained cracked interior walls, plaster fell off the structure, chimneys were broken." - and chimneys were broken.
  12. "He also described it as "a very rare occurrence."" - per logical quotation, this full stop should be outside the quotes.
  13. "One official correctly predicted the earthquakes would have no aftershocks." - While he may be an expert on the topic, I do not think it is accurate to refer to the director of seismological studies at Loyola University as an 'official'.
  14. "Millions in the area experienced the earthquake, the first major one in the area for decades." - repetition of 'in the area' throughout the article makes the prose weak.
  15. "Another woman, Jane Bessen, said her party "did not know about it until we got there"." - got where? this quote makes no sense.
    This was changed to "Another woman, Jane Bessen, said her party was "in a car...to Evansville and didn't know about it until we got there"." This still makes little sense in context. "Another woman" is a baffling introduction immediately after a quote by someone named Harold. I presume this quote is meant to highlight that not everyone noticed the quake—but it should be introduced as such, and this would come across more clearly if it was either before or after the slew of quotes from people who did notice it, rather than in the midst of them.
  16. "concluded the land adjacent to the New Madrid fault was moving less than two millimeters a year" - needs conversion, and should probably be reversed with it for consistency.
  17. "Douglas Wiens, a professor of earth and planetary sciences, said, "The strongest earthquakes in the last few years have come from the Wabash Valley Fault"[22]," - this cite should be moved after the comma.
  18. "Michael Wyssession, an associate professor of earth and planetary sciences, disparaged the Madrid fault zone" - how does one disparage a geological feature?
    Not yet fixed.
  19. The Wyssession quotes are presented illogically: they are listed one after the other, with no intermediary text, but with two sets of quote marks.
    Not quite fixed; one extraneous quote mark was removed, but the other was not.
  20. Please fix the citations to use a consistent date format; I see ISO, dmy and mdy.
    Mostly fixed, but cite 9 ("The south-central Illinois earthquake of November 9, 1968: Macroseismic studies") has a malformed publication date and an ISO accessdate. Cite 12 ("The Wabash Valley fault System in Southeatsern Illinois") needs an accessdate. Cite 16 ("It's Official-County was Center of Earthquake") needs a publication date, as does cite 19 ("Some Took Quake Calmly, Others Shook For Hours").
  21. Cite 16 ("Earthquake Damage Probable...") needs a publication title.
    Sorta fixed, but why |publisher=McLeansboro Times Leader? This is the name of the work—not the publisher—and it would be automatically italicized if you used the |work= parameter. Same issue with cite 5 ("Quake-Shy St. Louisans Compose Jangled Nerves"), which also needs an accessdate fix, unless it was actually checked in 1968 :)
  22. Cites 21 and 22 are erroneously listed as LiveScience publications; they are in fact from ScienceDaily, which helpfully includes citation information on each article.

Paraphrasing:

I recognize that it's probably difficult to paraphrase this type of thing, but three sentences are extremely closely paraphrased from this source even though none of the sentences cite that source.

  1. "Most buildings that experienced chimney damage were 30 to 50 years old." - source: "Most buildings that sustained damage to chimneys were 30 to 50 years old."
  2. "A concrete-brick cistern collapsed 6.2 miles (10 km) west of Dale." - source: "About 10 kilometers west of Dale, near Tuckers Corners, a concrete and brick cistern collapsed."
    This remains unchanged.
  3. "Moderate damage including broken chimneys and fractured walls occurred in several towns in south-central Illinois, southwest Indiana, and northwest Kentucky." - source: "Moderate damage to chimneys and walls occurred in several towns in south-central Illinois, southwest Indiana, and northwest Kentucky."
    This has been changed to "Moderate damage including broken chimneys and fractured walls populated multiple towns throughout south-central Illinois, southwest Indiana, and northwest Kentucky." This is further from plagiarism, but populate? Verb change needed.
These have all been finished, I believe.

Accuracy:

  1. "and was the largest earthquake ever recorded in Illinois; it had a Richter scale magnitude of 5.4–5.5" - not quite accurate to the cited source, which says 5.4, not 5.4–5.5.
  2. "A future earthquake likely will happen in the next 50 years: there is a 90 percent probability that an event with magnitude of about 6 will take place in that timespan." - 'future' is a given; 'next 50 years' is fuzzy, as this refers to a 2005 prediction; and 'magnitude of about 6' is not quite what the source says. Reword: In 2005, scientists determined there is a 90 percent probability of a magnitude 6–7 earthquake in the New Madrid area during the next 50 years.
  3. "a later study by Eric Calais of Purdue University and other experts concluded the land adjacent to the New Madrid fault was moving less than two millimeters a year" - not accurate to the source, which says "The team determined that the ground surrounding the fault system is moving at a rate of less than 0.2 millimeters per year".
    Value is correct now; add a nonbreaking space, please. I don't suppose conversion would be helpful here after all.
  4. "Steven Obermeir of the United States Geological Survey is one of several scientists who have found sediments suggesting Wabash Valley Fault earthquakes over magnitude 7 on the Richter scale." - not quite accurate to the source, which says "Obermeir and others have found disturbed sediments from previous earthquakes along the fault with estimated magnitudes of about 7 on the Richter scale over the past several thousand years."
All finished.

In general, I question the lead's assertion that the quake caused "considerable damage"; is this supported by sources? Given the descriptions in the Damage section, 'considerable' seems like it might be a stretch. Maralia (talk) 18:54, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the delay, I was unable to access a computer today and most of yesterday. I'm skipping around, and I have a query, what conversion do I use for millimeters? ceranthor 00:37, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I believe I've now resolved all your comments excluding the millimeter convert one, and I don't think disposing of considerable is necessary. For a 5.4, this caused a very surprising amount of damage, coming from someone who has written and read many earthquake articles. ceranthor 10:30, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have updated my comments per your subsequent edits. Still not comfortable with "considerable damage" absent sources that say as much. If it did cause 'a very surprising amount of damage' for a 5.4, surely there are reliable sources that say so. Maralia (talk) 17:11, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dabs; please check the disambiguation links identified in the toolbox. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:52, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
All finished, thank you. ceranthor 02:16, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Something crazy is going on with the infobox; it says the quake was at a depth of "25.7495040000000 km". --Golbez (talk) 07:29, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Oppose—1a. I've made a few copy-edits at the opening. It seems to need an independent and careful copy-edit throughout by a word-nerd to pick up little glitches and, worse, problems of logic.

  • Please check my "in the nation".
  • May I steal this for my "Logic Workshop" page? "Response to the earthquake was mixed: some people near the epicenter did not even notice the shaking, while others panicked." The contrast doesn't work—apples and oranges. Perceiving the effects is contrasted with reacting to the event (notice vs. panic; i.e., perception vs. behaviour). At first it may seem to be a subtle distinction, but it jars. And does "near the epicenter" apply to both groups of people? It's a loose end. I'd fix it if I knew the topic. Maybe relocate the "some people ... didn't notice it" to after "rupture" ... "Despite this, some people ....".
  • "Data from large earthquakes that occurred in May and July 1909 and the November 1968 shock, respectively, suggest that earthquakes in the area are of only moderate magnitude and can be felt over a large area." Is "shock" used in the middle to avoid three occurrences of "earthquake(s)"? If so, I'm asking myself whether it's somehow different from that term. (If not, consider instead: "Data from the large earthquakes of May and July 1909 and November 1968 suggest that earthquakes in the area are of only moderate magnitude but can be felt over a large geographical area." (I used "but" because I think you're drawing a contrast there ... one would normally expect magnitude to correlated with geographical spread?)
  • Size-wise? "had a felt area" (sounds like a billiards table). What "idea"?
  • Fallen ... felled ... felt ... felt.
  • Magnitude 6 turns into "6–7" later. Please be utterly consistent.
  • Remove "of them being". "more than 100 times greater in geographical reach" (or whatever one says in this scientific field).
  • Surely the earthquake occurred on the surface too? Is there a technical term for what happened 16 km underground? And the order of metric/US conversions is inconsistent at least once.

I don't want to discourage, but it's not ready yet. It would be great to see this again, but shining—I look forward to it. Do mark hypotheses as such, so it's clearer for readers. Tony (talk) 14:34, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Oppose As the GA1 reviewer, I remain unsatisfied with the geography section. I would like to know at least what county the epicenter was in.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 05:02, 25 June 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/1968_Illinois_earthquake/archive1&oldid=1136099297"