Wikipedia:Peer review/2010 Pichilemu earthquake/archive2

2010 Pichilemu earthquake[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because, just as I pointed out in the previous peer review, I want to nominate this article for FA status. I believe it is promising now. After more than two years, several new sources surfaced and so, the article seems benefited from that.

Thanks, Diego Grez (talk) 02:15, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Brianboulton comments: It is clear that a lot of effort and research has gone into the article, and I see that it has been classified as a Good Article. However, I believe that a lot more work is necessary before the article can be ready for a shot at FAC with any real chance of success. There are particular issues that need to be addressed relating to the lead and to the overall quality of the prose, as well as questions of clarity and accessibility to the non-technical reader.

General point

Directly quoted material should be specifically attributed, unless it is obvious who/what is being quoted. For example: 'Chilean seismologists were worried about the "absence of an earthquake around magnitude 7 following the February 27 quake."' Who said this?

Lead

The lead is supposed to be a broad summary of the contents of the main article. Detailed information, such as the precise time at which the earthquake struck, the exact population of Pichilemu, etc, should be reserved for the main article.
As a general rule, the lead should not give information that is not included in the body of the article, and should not include trivial/marginal information, e.g. Punta de Lobos's status as a surfing centre.
Likewise, all significant information in the article should be at least touched on in the lead.
Information should not be cited in the lead when the same information is given, and cited, in the main article.

Background

In the lead we have: "The 11 March earthquake was at first thought to be an aftershock from the 27 February event, but University of Chile Seismologist Jaime Campos identified it as an "independent earthquake".' Yet here we are told, without qualification: "The 6.9 earthquake of 11 March 2010 was part of a series of earthquakes and aftershocks in central and southern Chile after the 27 February event."

Geology

The term "the change in regional stress" needs clarifying for the benefit of non-geoloogist readers
"Preliminary analyses by the United States Geological Survey (USGS) of their locations..." Confusing "their": to what does it refer?
In the second paragraph of this section, three separate locations for the earthquake are provided, seemingly quite different. I assume that these locations refer to the epicentre, though this is not stated. The differences seem quite significant - 15 km NW of Pichilemu, 35 km NE of Pichilemu, 105 km west of Rancagua, etc. What is the explanation for these divergences of data?
"~30 km": for the benefit of general readers, this format ("approximately") should be spelt out. Also, most of this paragraph will be incomprehensible to general readers, and needs to be written less technically.

Reaction

"protocolary": never heard of this word; did you make it up?
What does it mean "with his visits"? Should it be "with his visitors"?
"one of the most affected cities by the quake." Don't use the vernacular ("quake"), and reorder: "one of the cities most affected cities by the earthquake."
"[SHOA] issued a tsunami warning between Coquimbo and Los Lagos regions..." - needs to be "issued a tsunami warning for the area between Coquimbo and Los Lagos regions", and you should give date and time for this warning.
"The SHOA-emitted tsunami warning was lifted at around 15:50 local time (18:50 UTC)". "SHOA-emitted" is an ugly formation. On what date was the warning lifted?
"President Sebastián Piñera urged coastal residents..." No need to give the president's full name again
decreed "catastrophe state"; surely "declared" rather than "decreed"? And it should be "a catastrophe state".

Damages and casualties

"epicenter" is American English; you have used British English (and British date formats) until now.
"balaustrades" - what are they? (Not an English word)
"damaged severely" is followed in the same sentence by "severely damaged"
"while the road to Panilonco resulted damaged" - not literate English
"damaged after the 1985 Algarrobo earthquake..."? Surely it was damaged "during" the earthquake?
What is "dramatic" damage?
"...small waves were seen in the area surrounding Pichilemu." Can you amplify on the nature of these "small waves"? If they were on the sea, they would surely be nothing exceptional?
I may be misunderstanding something, but sea wave heights of six inches or a foot don't seem to me to be in the least bit threatening, let alone being described as part of a "tsunami".

Aftershocks

Again, avoid use of the informal "quake"
"centered" is American
"within the following six hours after..." The word "following" is made redundant by "after"
"The United States Geological Survey measured the earthquake with magnitude 5.9." To what does this sentence refer? It says "measured the earthquake", but I believe you mean aftershock. Also, "measured the earthquake with magnitude 5.9" is incomplete English: "...with a magnitude of 5.9"

I will be happy to look at the article again when you have dealt with the above issues. Please contact me via my talkpage when you are ready. Brianboulton (talk) 18:30, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

working on it Diego Grez (talk) 18:18, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ping me when you're through Brianboulton (talk) 19:20, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]