Talk:Earthquake cycle

Comments

Some comments on the article as currently written: From the Hume questions to consider during the review process:

1) Were the basic sections adequate? If not, what is missing? I think the answer to this is that the sections are adequate for the most part, though I might suggest a little more discussion of the rate-and-state models used in the modeling of earthquake cycle models since it is an important topic. A quick summary would be useful in conjunction with the section on the Dynamic rupture modeling.

2) Did the writer use subheadings well to clarify sections in the text? I would say for the most part, yes, though I'm not 100 percent certain that the section headings are always perfectly correlated to the content of the paragraph they correspond to. The paragraph titled "Stress accumulation and elastic rebound" doesn't describe elastic rebound using that term. It isn't clear to me reading this paragraph that the text would correspond to my understanding of elastic rebound theory. Also a minor note, but I think the heading should be "Dynamic Fault Modeling" as opposed to "Fault Dynamic Modeling"

3) Was the material ordered in a way that was logical, clear, easy to follow? Yes, the sections make sense with respect to this topic. It makes sense to divide this topic into Theory, Observations and Modeling, but I would also suggest that perhaps the observations section could be divided between geodetic measurements (GPS, InSAR) and the geologic ones (things like sand blows, uplifts, etc). If any pictures can be found that would go with this section, that would be very useful.

4) Did the writer adequately summarize and discuss the topic? I think in general the answer is yes. The sections in this article provide a good overview of the earthquake cycle topic, with perhaps some discussion missing about what the phases are, how long they might be, things like that. There is a reference to the fact that a complete earthquake cycle hasn't been observed, but it isn't made clear that this is the case because large earthquakes occur with recurrence intervals on the order of 100-1000 years.

5) Did the writer comprehensively cover appropriate materials available from the standard sources? If no, what's missing? In general yes, see above comments on possible missing topics.

I would also recommend rephrasing the first sentence. As it is written, it makes it sound as though this was simply an observation in earthquake science. While the repeated behavior is an observation, the concept of the earthquake cycle is more fundamental than the observation that earthquakes happen multiple times in one location, it is an attempt to understand how and why earthquakes occur thusly.

Images in this article are for a large part helpful, with the exception of the one I suggested adding above, I think they are good. However, I might consider providing a little more to the caption of the second figure.

Use of citations and sources is very good. It appears you have accumulated a broad range of scientific articles on the subject, which are all good, neutral sources of information.

Rriesr (talk) 06:21, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Hi Rosie,

Thank you very much for your comments. They are very useful.

I have made a set of modifications to my article based on your suggestions:

1. I might suggest a little more discussion of the rate-and-state models used in the modeling of earthquake cycle models since it is an important topic. A quick summary would be useful in conjunction with the section on the Dynamic rupture modeling.

I agree. I have added a brief summary of the rate-and-state friction in the rupture modeling section, and divided it into two minor sections.

2. The paragraph titled "Stress accumulation and elastic rebound" doesn't describe elastic rebound using that term. It isn't clear to me reading this paragraph that the text would correspond to my understanding of elastic rebound theory. Also a minor note, but I think the heading should be "Dynamic Fault Modeling" as opposed to "Fault Dynamic Modeling"

I changed the description in the elastic rebound section, and use the word "rebound" to establish the connections. Also, the "Dynamic Fault Modeling" is used as new section title.

3. I would also suggest that perhaps the observations section could be divided between geodetic measurements (GPS, InSAR) and the geologic ones (things like sand blows, uplifts, etc). If any pictures can be found that would go with this section, that would be very useful.

Yes thank you. I divided the observation section into Geodetic and Geologic, two minor sections. And a picture of the geologic evidence (sediment layer offsets for a continental Mongolia fault) is added to the content.

4. How long they might be, things like that. There is a reference to the fact that a complete earthquake cycle hasn't been observed, but it isn't made clear that this is the case because large earthquakes occur with recurrence intervals on the order of 100-1000 years.

Yes, good question. I added a description of the earthquake cycle duration at the leading part of the article. I believe there is a question related to whether earthquakes happened in the same fault but different area represents an earthquake cycle. And it is why "at the same place" should always follows the statement of "no complete earthquake cycle have been observed"

5. I would also recommend rephrasing the first sentence. As it is written, it makes it sound as though this was simply an observation in earthquake science. While the repeated behavior is an observation, the concept of the earthquake cycle is more fundamental than the observation that earthquakes happen multiple times in one location, it is an attempt to understand how and why earthquakes occur thusly.

Thank you for your suggestion. I have changed the first sentence to "Earthquake Cycle refers to a phenomenon of earthquakes occur repetitively on the same fault as a result of the periodical stress accumulating and releasing on the fault." Maybe it makes more sense.

Again thank you very much for your comments. Please contact me if you have further questions or suggestions.

Xiaohansong (talk) 00:05, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

Second Round of Peer Review

Hello, Xiohansong! Great work on this latest draft! I have made some grammatical corrections to your page to ensure it meets Wikipedia's guidelines. Also, I would suggest you read the bolded comments in your article and act upon them. Most of them relate to linking to other Wikipedia pages and ensuring my changes didn't accidentally change the meaning of your original sentences. Overall, a great job! Cpnoll (talk) 23:07, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

Hello Chris,

Thank you very much for your suggestions. I have corrected the errors in word using and added the reference links as complete as possible!

Xiaohansong (talk) 00:05, 13 March 2022 (UTC)