Talk:1986 João Câmara earthquake

GA Review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This review is transcluded from Talk:1986 João Câmara earthquake/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Amitchell125 (talk · contribs) 14:30, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

Happy to review the article. AM

Review comments

Lead section / infobox

local time – providing the correct time zone here would be useful. right near – ‘close to’ is more correct.  Done I've improved the grammar here Dawnseeker2000 18:41, 10 August 2023 (UTC) Usually referred to as the 1986 João Câmara earthquake – it is normal practise for the name of the article to be introduced earlier on (see MOS:FIRST). Consider amending to something like 'The 1986 João Câmara earthquake, which occurred on 30 November 1986 at 02:19 local time, was an earthquake…’. (or Sismo de João Câmara de 1986 in Portuguese) – replace with ({{lang-pt|Sismo de João Câmara de 1986}}).  Done I have expanded the lead overall to summarize the article for it to be fit for MOS:INTRO. Every issue in this section was covered. Reego41 09:14, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

1 Tectonic setting

Link Rio Grande do Norte; swarm of earthquakes (Earthquake swarm). This map (and the one that follows) do not seem to have come from reliable sources, and so I would question whether they should be used here.  Semi-done I removed the map of Gondwana with an explanation in the edit summary. This article leans a bit too much on its oversized sectonic setting section (which could/should be reduced). The map just strays way too far away from the topic Dawnseeker2000 19:08, 10 August 2023 (UTC) I will be going over the tectonic setting section and implementing fixes, might rewrite some parts of it as well. Thanks for pointing out. Reego41 09:19, 11 August 2023 (UTC) @Dawnseeker2000 and Amitchell125: I've done some changes to the tectonic setting section, please inform me if there's anything wrong. Reego41 13:51, 16 August 2023 (UTC) Looks OK now. AM The See also template should really be a 'Further information' template. Not done Usage of the see also templates is correct Dawnseeker2000 18:43, 10 August 2023 (UTC) Understood. AM 3 – ‘three’ (MOS:NUMERAL). Ditto other numbers less than 9, including 4 here and elsewhere.  Done Dawnseeker2000 18:56, 10 August 2023 (UTC) the Amazon, Paraná and Parnaíba basins - basins is redundant here.  Not done - The sentence would be off. Without basins, this is how the sentence would read: "Brazil is geologically dominated by three major sedimentary basins; the Amazon, Paraná and Parnaíba." They are called the Amazon Basin, the Paraná Basin and the Parnaíba Basin. Can't be shortened. Reego41 13:51, 16 August 2023 (UTC) Understood. AM Unlink South America (common term).  Done Dawnseeker2000 18:56, 10 August 2023 (UTC) Convert 400,000 km2.  Done Dawnseeker2000 18:56, 10 August 2023 (UTC) including the 5.1 – it may not be clear to readers what this is referring to.

2 Earthquake
Link João Câmara.  Done Reego41 10:01, 11 August 2023 (UTC) Add a comma after at the time. 6 years earlier, a mb 5.2 earthquake had also struck nearby, in Ceará - amend to ‘A mb 5.2 earthquake had also struck nearby in Ceará six years earlier’, to avoid starting he sentence with a numeral.  Done

2.1 Characteristics
The single sentence is too small to stand on its own as a separate subsection. It should be merged with the paragraph above.  Done Reego41 09:42, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

2.2 Sequence
The sentences should be combined to make a single paragraph, which doesn’t need to have its own title.  Done Reego41 09:42, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

3.1 Response
This very short paragraph could easily be absorbed into the section above it, which could then be given the title ‘Impact and response’.  Done Reego41 09:44, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

5 Notes
There is no need for Note a (and therefore this section).

6 References
Ref 1 (ISC) needs a retrieval date, for the sake of being consistent in this section. Ditto Refs 3, 11 and 13 (United States Geological Survey). Not done This reference has a date and the material within will not change. Dawnseeker2000 18:40, 10 August 2023 (UTC) Understood. AM The title for Ref 5 (Labsis) should not be in capitals. Refs 3, 11 and 13 should be formatted in the same way.

6.1 Sources

Dillenburg is cited in the References section (p.19), but also here (p. 380). It is not possible to tell which is correct.  Done Might've forgotten that it was a book citation. Reego41 14:05, 16 August 2023 (UTC) Consider adding ‘url-access=subscription’ for Dillenburg. Ditto Takeya et al.  Not done I've never had to do this with any wikipedia page I've worked with that has had sources with paid access. Freely accessible ones are marked anyway. Reego41 14:05, 16 August 2023 (UTC) Understood, I only asked you to consider it.. AM Araujo Neto – the original title, in Portuguese, needs to be included. Add ‘language=pt’.  Done Reego41 09:57, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

7 External links
International Seismological Centre should be a Wikilink, not an external link.  Not done We will need someone to change the formatting at Template:EQ-isc-link Dawnseeker2000 18:48, 10 August 2023 (UTC) Understood. AM No copyright violations found, and the spot check i did revealed no issues.

On hold

I'm putting the article on hold for a week until 18 August to allow time for the issues raised to be addressed. Regards, Amitchell125 (talk) 13:34, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

Alright. I'll get on it. Thanks for reviewing. Reego41 13:49, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

Passing

Passing now. Best, Amitchell125 (talk) 15:49, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

Comment

The article needs to conform to MOS:INTRO (GA criteria 1b) in order to be promoted. As of this moment, the article's lead does not summarize the article's sections adequately. Dawnseeker2000 00:53, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for addressing some of the above issues, Dawnseeker2000, and for your helpful suggestions. The article is only 950 words long at present, so the lead section, whilst it could do with some extra information (e.g. about the tectonic setting), it need not be more than a sentence or two longer. Amitchell125 (talk) 14:28, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.