- 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 SandyGeorgia 16:48, 29 December 2009 [1].
- Nominator(s): ceranthor 20:15, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am nominating this for featured article because I think it is a fully comprehensive and equally engaging account of this earthquake. Since it passed GA in February, I've been steadily improving it. Malleus and Ottava both looked over the prose and made some comments, so I feel that the article is now ready to become an FA. ceranthor 20:15, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Restart, old nom. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:34, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments -
- What makes the following reliable sources?
- Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:06, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Responded to comments. ceranthor 21:46, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Ideally you show reliablity by outside use of the site by reliable sources, so the links to information from the site itself is not as good as having a reliable news site/etc. use it. I'll leave these out for other reviewers to decide for themselves. (Sorry for the delay, I"ve been sick) Ealdgyth - Talk 19:18, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Ceranthor, when citing to a press release, it helps to discuss the text cited and explain why it's the best source for the text, or why another source can't be found, or how that source is used and whether it's biased. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:22, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Ok, I don't have time to do anything else today, but ScienceDaily is highly reliable. I think this provides enough support. I will try to finish these concerns tomorrow. ceranthor 02:12, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Likewise, see the results just for the opening of WFN.
- The UN story is actually supported by a UN source - wow. I feel incredibly stupid. I think these have all been resolved. ceranthor 14:19, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I've left these two others out for other reviewers to decide for themselves. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:30, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Firm Oppose (Flat out of time. Looks like Hamiltonstone and Karanacs are doing a good job. Will defer to their judgment. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 04:22, 3 December 2009 (UTC)) This article really has no business being here. This is my fourth review of the article. It seems that whatever specific examples I provide, are corrected, but the authors don't bother to even eyeball the rest of the article for similar errors! Here are just two (symptomatic) issues in paragraph 1, Section 1:[reply]
- (Grammar issue:) "The first major earthquake in that region since 1979, magnitudes of 7.3 Mw, 7.2 Ms, and 7.7 Me were recorded, and a Mercalli scale intensity of X, or disastrous, was assigned to the worst-hit area.[1]
- After first appositive, "The first major earthquake in that region since 1979," the reader expects, "it registered magnitudes of 7.3 Mw, 7.2 Ms, and 7.7 Me ..." instead you go into passive voice and the reader is no longer sure of the (grammatical) subject.
- "(the epicenter is) close to the sparsely populated mountainous border with Afghanistan."
- (Clarity issue) Since you are talking about a sparsely populated border, you likely mean "border region." However, a border region is only vaguely defined, so what does "close to a border region" mean? How close? Why is it not in the border region? In such situations, it is better to simply say "close to the border" (i.e. without the "sparsely populated") or "in the sparsely populated border region." Or if the border region is a province, you could say "close to the XYZ border province."
- (Coherence issue) Besides, why do we need "sparsely populated?" In other words, don't introduce something ("sparsely populated") before it is really needed in the text; it throws the reader off.
As the examples suggest, the problem is not one of grammar alone; there are outstanding clarity and coherence issues. The reader is nonplussed at many turns. There are redlinks for technical jargon; how do those help if you don't also give us accompanying explanations, or at least some hints. Copyediting alone is not going to cut it. You need to have the article peer-reviewed. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 09:03, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I disagree; Fowler, I think you're nitpicking here. I am completely willing to resolve your concerns, but I don't think they're worth opposing over. Karanacs, the co-director of FAC, said "she believed the prose now met the criteria". I really think you're here to help, but are starting to just nitpick here. ceranthor 14:13, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Please don't insult my reviewing by describing it as nitpicking. "Nitpick" (especially in its nominalized version, though you haven't employed it) is the latest weapon in the armament of the less than prepared nominators. When I have time later in the day, I will go through the article one more time. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:52, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Erm, I've been preparing the article steadily since it passed GA in February. I don't think it's ill prepared. It also had 7 supports the last time around, if you count hamiltonstone's. ceranthor 15:19, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - reposting support. I don't see any changes that have done enough to merit not supporting. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:17, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - Meets the criteria by and large. No major issues that I can see. –Juliancolton | Talk 15:34, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - Criterion 1a. I found found the article engaging and well-written. I think the Science Daily source is reliable; they say the article was "adapted from materials provided by the University of Colorado" and I see no reason not to believe this. Thanks for an interesting contribution. Graham Colm Talk 16:49, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks to all three of you. ceranthor 17:09, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - Only reviewed criteria 1a. A comment such as "This article really has no business being here," is really uncalled for Fowler. Especially considering the amount of supports the article has received. If you are still under the impression that the article is so poor then why not go ahead and give a copy-edit? Aaroncrick (talk) Review me! 08:19, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you. ceranthor 08:25, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- You might want to see if you can obtain some free images. Shame we have none of the earthquake. Have you checked out USAID for possible photos and more information on relief efforts? Himalayan 21:55, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I had a bit - I've looked around and haven't found anything, unfortunately. Good to see you again, btw. If you find anything, I'll put it in asap, just ping me. Perhaps you have better connections than I do. ceranthor 00:16, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose (at present). I had given contingent support earlier. Prompted by Fowler & Fowler's remark, I went back and read more carefully. I have found a number of prose and content issues that I should have seen before, which i think mean the article does not meet FA criteria. However, give me a couple of days, and I hope I can address most of these issues. They include:
- Material in Background and geology that belongs in later sections
Reference to a Japanese geological team's work, but not to the important part - their conclusions
There is one matter i would ask a nominating editor to address:
The article has this at one point: "it registered magnitudes of 7.3 Mw, 7.2 Ms, and 7.7 Me and a Mercalli scale intensity...". Later, it has this: "Up to 155 aftershocks, some of which reached a magnitude of 5.5 on the Richter scale,..." The mix of technical measurements, and lack of explanations in most cases (Mercalli scale is an exception), presents the reader with a comprehension problem. Moment magnitude scale and Surface wave magnitude are at least wikilinked, but the lay reader won't know what they are, nor why they differ. Me lacks any link or explanation at all. In my part of the world at least (Australia), the measure of earthquake intensity used in everyday conversation (eg. news reports) is the Richter scale. There is no comparison offered here between Richter and other measures and, most annoyingly, we are offered a Richter measure for the aftershocks, but a completely different (and less well-understood i think) measure for the main quake. Can this be addressed? hamiltonstone (talk) 05:22, 30 November 2009 (UTC) Now addressed, thanks. hamiltonstone (talk) 00:22, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]There is an issue with the use of a reference too. The article said this: "The 13th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering in Vancouver, Canada concludes that there are a number of increasingly common issues leading to the large death tolls in Iranian earthquakes. These problems are mainly a result of poorly constructed homes, not just traditional structures."
- However, in fact it was not the conference that said this - according to hte footnote it was a paper by T. Mahdi. What the paper actually says is this:
In recent years and due to the relatively high cost of traditional construction, lack of proper construction
material and the lack of qualified trained people, the quality of the newly constructed traditional buildings
has been deteriorated. Accordingly, most of the existing buildings that considered as “traditional” ones
have not met the minimum requirements for such buildings. Unfortunately, no official regulations exist for
these buildings in Iran. Furthermore, the blame for high causalities in previous Iranian earthquakes was
squarely laid at the door of these buildings. On the other hand, and due to the existence of new materials
and systems that have been supported by relatively good codes of practice, most of traditional buildings
have been replaced by new systems such as reinforced concrete frames, steel frames, confined masonry
buildings, and semi-engineered brick buildings.
The text requires tweaking both to cite this more accurately and to report it more accurately. I'll try and get to this later. hamiltonstone (talk) 09:10, 30 November 2009 (UTC) I have now made an attempt to fix this.hamiltonstone (talk) 16:53, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I won't express a view about whether it should be promoted. As this diff shows (which covers edits all but two of which are my own), I have done quite a bit of work revising the article. I am surprised at some of the 'supports' this attracted as, while i'm very happy with ceranthor's efforts and would like to see the article promoted, it had a lot of issues. Looking back, i have no idea why i supported it the first time, and had it not been for F&F's intervention, i may not have gone back over the piece. I hope editors will also check and respond to Karanacs, and then maybe it can get promoted. Cheers, hamiltonstone (talk) 03:34, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry, I've been exceptionally busy. I will do my best to get to this today or tomorrow.
- Done! ceranthor 15:35, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've made a few small edits, and I'm now ready to support Jimfbleak - talk to me? 18:58, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose by Karanacs. I think there are still some comprehensiveness issues.
- I was glad to see a discussion of the types of houses that fell, but I think this would likely be more appropriate in the damage section rather than the background section.
- There is still no discussion of previous earthquakes in the area or mention that this was the third(?) earthquake to hit Iran in a very short amount of time. (Have you been able to get the other source I had linked?)
- I think there is information in "Preliminary Report of The Damage Due To The Qayen Earthquake of 1997, Northeast Iran" which would be very useful to this article.
Karanacs (talk) 19:21, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I haven't been able to get that source. I'll keep looking though. ceranthor 10:50, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Can you fetch it form here? Ruslik_Zero 11:03, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- If you still can't access it, email me and I'll send it to you. Karanacs (talk) 15:45, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Emailed. ceranthor 15:35, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I sent you a PDF of the article. Let me know if it doesn't come through. Karanacs (talk) 21:38, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks. I'm sorting through it now. Unfortunately, my weekend is consumed from 12-7 tomorrow, so I'll do my best in incorporating it. ceranthor 00:27, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Has this info been worked in, and has Karanacs been pinged to have a look? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:20, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes and yes, via email. ceranthor 22:47, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Spot-check on prose in a randomly selected paragraph:
- "Most homes in the stricken area that fell were built traditionally,"—sounds like an area that fell to the Roman army. "Most seriously damaged homes in the stricken area were ..."? Please check your own prose (after gaining strategic distance by thinking "defensively"—that is, with eyes open to potential wrong meanings.
- "The walls ... were unresistant to the earthquake"—It's not idiomatic (specifically, "unresistant"—if that is in the dictionary, it's still an odd one). "were extremely vulnerable to the massive forces involved in earth tremors" ... or something like that? PS "resistant" is OK a few lines further on.
- "Exhibited"; yes, native speakers use this too, but it's not nice. "were more resistant to earthquakes than ...; however, the heavy roofs and weak joint connections between the major structural elements of such buildings close to the epicentre were typically unable to withstand the onslaught." ... perhaps? And the commas could go in the "exhibited" sentence.
I opposed this first time around. I'm afraid that I'm still uncomfortable, although it's better than it was in terms of 1a. I don't want to stand in the way of promotion if other people strongly support this one, though. Tony (talk) 11:42, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Ok, I addressed those. I did ping a copyeditor who pretty much sorted out all the problems from last time, at least to my satisfaction. That paragraph was recently added, so it makes sense it's weaker than the rest. If you're still unsatisfied, considering the length of this FAC, it might just have to be archived. I am awaiting now both Sandy and Karen's input on whether it's ready or not. ceranthor 14:40, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support After just a read-through, seems fine but I've not checked it thouraly, so weak. Bottom of the pile, eh Cer? A dubious honor you have of making it here :) ResMar 03:53, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Another spot-check:
- "the cost of the damage at 1997 $67 million.[6] The estimate was later raised to 1997 $100 million."—this is not the standard way of expressing the inflation-adjusted values. Please see what Julian Coulton et al. do in the hurricane articles.
- "Most homes in the stricken area that fell were simply constructed"—"had been".
- "height to width ratio"—strictly speaking, two hyphens are required for easier reading.
- "between major structural elements of such buildings"—I think we need "the" here, unless you want to emphasise that it was only some of the major structural elements. In fact "the" before "weak", as well, would stop this meaning leaking back to roofs.
- "sent 9,000 tents, over 18,000 blankets, canned food, rice, and dates"—I guess the tents did end up being "over" the blankets, but that's not the "over" you mean here. Better style—I think—is "more than".
- "A specialist British disaster rescue organisation, the International Rescue Corps, offered to send a team but were refused visas, and a Swiss offer of additional assistance was also turned down." Any reason why? It seems incredible to the reader.
- Logic issues: "No more survivors were expected to be found in the rubble." So no more were expected then, but did that turn out to be true? Either "... rubble, an assumption that turned out to be true", or something like that.
- Ellipsis dot spacing: still not right. See MoS.
It's borderline in terms of the prose. I'm wearying and also aware of the good faith and hard work of the nominator; if this is promoted, my advice to the nominator is to get a native speaker on board before taking the article to FAC. Tony (talk) 04:40, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Okay, this has been here a while so if you feel it's not ready it can be archived. I've gone through and fixed the majority of your concerns - as for the rubble one, I don't believe any more were found, but no sources say that, so I'd let the reader make their own conclusion. Taking care of the inflation and ellipses. ceranthor 04:54, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I think the material which has been recently added to the article allows it to meet comprehensiveness concerns (and makes it a much better article). I've copyedited the article again, with special attention to the newly-added material (which was the focus of Tony1's prose comments above). My apologies for the delayed response - I had no computer access last week. Karanacs (talk) 19:02, 28 December 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.
- ^ Cite error: The named reference
Adsabs was invoked but never defined (see the help page).