Talk:1991 Sierra Madre earthquake

1991 Sierra Madre earthquake has been listed as one of the Geography and places good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. Review: May 30, 2015. (Reviewed version).

This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Earthquakes Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Earthquakes, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of earthquakes, seismology, plate tectonics, and related subjects 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.EarthquakesWikipedia:WikiProject EarthquakesTemplate:WikiProject EarthquakesWikiProject Earthquakes articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. California Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject California, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of California 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.CaliforniaWikipedia:WikiProject CaliforniaTemplate:WikiProject CaliforniaCalifornia articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

This review is transcluded from Talk:1991 Sierra Madre earthquake/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: West Virginian (talk · contribs) 14:37, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dawnseeker2000, I will be engaging in a thorough and comprehensive review of this article within the next 48 hours. Please let me know if you have any comments or questions for me in the meantime. Thanks! -- West Virginian (talk) 14:37, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

Dawnseeker2000, following my review and re-review of this article, I find that it meets all the criteria for Good Article status. Prior to its passage, however, I do have some questions and comments that should be addressed. You've done a wonderful job of illustrating every facet of this earthquake, and it has been a pleasure to review this article. Once you've addressed my below comments, this article will be good to go for Good Article status. Thanks! -- West Virginian (talk) 15:24, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose, no copyvios, spelling and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

Lede

• Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section, the lede adequately stands alone as a concise overview of the 1991 Sierra Madre earthquake. The lede defines the earthquake's effects, establishes context for the earthquake, explains why the earthquake is notable, and summarizes the most important points of the earthquake.
• The info box template is beautifully formatted, and its contents are cited within the prose, utilizing inline citations.
• The California location map is licensed CC BY-SA 3.0 and is therefore suitable for use here.
• I suggest referring the the fault system by its full/amalgamated name: Sierra Madre–Cucamonga Fault System.  Done
• The lede's content is well-written, its contents are sourced and cited within the prose below, and its references are verifiable. I have no further comments or suggestions for this section.

Preface

• In the first paragraph of the Preface section, it begins by stating that the San Andreas System has been California's focal point of hazard assessment. I would modify the second sentence of the first paragraph so that the point you're trying to get across flows better, perhaps by adding a however in front of the second sentence, and a slight reorganization.

Due to its history of generating great earthquakes (1857, 1906) the focal point of earthquake hazard assessment in California has been the strike-slip San Andreas System of faults. However, a system of faults, including the Sierra Madre–Cucamonga Fault System that runs along the border of the San Gabriel and San Fernando Valleys, has also caused a series of moderate to large events have occurred in the Greater Los Angeles Area.  Done Thanks! That is a solid improvement, and improves the clarity in that paragraph. I also refined the second paragraph in that section. I was looking for a more ideal way to say what I was trying to say because it lacked clarity.

• Because the San Andreas System had been such a focal point, did California fail to place as much emphasis on assessing the hazards for the Sierra Madre–Cucamonga Fault System area? Yes, from what I have seen and read, it's only been since the cluster of events starting in 1971 that the earthquake potential has been carefully studied. Prior to that, even seismologists had downplayed the threat of earthquakes in the area, but I don't necessarily think that all of our articles on California earthquakes need that sort of discussion.
• This section's content is well-written, its contents are sourced and cited within its prose, and its references are verifiable. I have no further comments or suggestions for this section.

Tectonic setting

• Transverse Ranges can be de-linked in this section, as it is linked and introduced in the Preface section.  Done
• I suggest stating that the San Cayetano Fault and Santa Susana Fault share similar characteristics of left-lateral strike-slip motion, rather than a trend.  Done Both qualities are shared, so I've combined and rewritten the sentences in simpler way.
• This section's content is well-written, its contents are sourced and cited within its prose, and its references are verifiable. I have no further comments or suggestions for this section.

Earthquake

• The San Gabriel Mountains can be de-linked here as they are wiki-linked above in the previous section.  Done I removed both links in the tectonic setting and earthquake sections. Once in the lead is probably OK (for such a small article).
• Would it make more sense to include this sentence in the "Tectonic setting" section above? The uplift initiated about two million years ago, and is a result of the convergence of the Pacific and North American Plates near the restraining bend of the San Andreas Fault. It seems like it would be helpful in providing context to the tectonic setting for this earthquake event. It might, but I'm willing to leave it there for now. It explains the initiation of uplift after mentioning the amount that was seen during the two events, so it's not out of place
• The Sierra Madre earthquake map is a product of the USGS and is therefore released to the Public Domain and is acceptable for use here.
• In the "Damage" subsection, I suggest specifying that 07:43:55 is local time, and I would reiterate the date it occurred here.  Done
• While this is not a deal breaker for passage to Good Article status, you may want to pursue getting a free newspapers.com account through Wikipedia:Newspapers.com so that you can peruse newspapers from that time period to provide a more comprehensive damage assessment and assessment of local reactions to the earthquake. The source here is pretty ideal, and I am always focused on balancing the articles, and not overstating event's effects. The two paragraphs adequately summarizes its effects in fine detail and without overdoing it.
• This section's content is well-written, its contents are sourced and cited within its prose, and its references are verifiable. I have no further comments or suggestions for this section.

Recurrence interval

• This section's content is well-written, its contents are sourced and cited within its prose, and its references are verifiable. I have no comments or suggestions for this section.

Thanks for the detailed review, West Virginian. Just getting going this morning, and I'll take some time today to go through each recommendation and adjust where necessary or respond to the suggestions. Great input, Dawnseeker2000 15:59, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dawnseeker2000, thank you for your response. Please enjoy your Saturday morning and respond at your leisure. Thanks for all your great work on this article. -- West Virginian (talk) 16:36, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dawnseeker2000, your responses to my comments and suggestions are more than adequate, and upon my review and re-review of your article, I find that it is ready to pass to Good Article status. Congratulations on another job well done! -- West Virginian (talk) 22:43, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for the detailed review and improvements, Dawnseeker2000 22:54, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]