Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Peer review/1995 Aigio earthquake/archive1

< Wikipedia:Peer review

1995 Aigio earthquake

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

I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to take it to FA status. This is prep for FAC. Any concerns or criticisms are welcome.

Thanks, SamBroGaming (talk) 22:21, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@SamBroGaming: This has been open for more than a month without comment. Are you still interested in receiving comments? If so, I suggest posting requests in Wikiprojects attached to this article. I also suggest, since this is your first FA, that you seek a FA mentor who can guide you through the FAC process. If you are no longer interested in receiving comments, can we close this? Z1720 (talk) 16:41, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Z1720 Hello, yes I am still interested in receiving comments. I have posted this in Wikipedia:WikiProject Earthquakes, however that has not sparked an interest in this peer review. I also have seeked out an FA mentor in Jimfbleak, so that front is covererd as well. Since I am still interested in this peer review, what steps should I take for the future? SamBroGaming (talk) 21:48, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Other steps you can take are to post a message in the other Wikiprojects listed on the talk page. If you don't receive an answer from Jim in about two weeks, that you ask others in WP:FAM if they can review this. I also suggest that, if you haven't already done so, you should review articles at WP:FAC. This will get you familiar with the FAC process and build goodwill amongst FAC reviewers, causing your article to be reviewed more quickly when it is nominated there. Z1720 (talk) 16:52, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I have now listed the article under every wikiproject in the talk page, Jim has been helping me improve the article, and I shall start reviewing FACs when I have time. Thank you for the help. SamBroGaming (talk) 01:33, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@SamBroGaming: I'm a little surprised you didn't reach out to me seeing as I wrote nearly all of the earthquake FAs on the English Wikipedia. If you'd like guidance toward bringing this to FA, I'd be happy to help - just let me know. ceranthor 01:25, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hello there, that would be greatly appreciated! I had previously emailed you about another GA of mine and potentially bringing that up to FA, however I don't believe I got a response, and someone in a similar position asked for help on your talk page and you mentioned inactivity. All of that aside, your help would be greatly useful, and if you could provide guidance, I would value that a lot. SamBroGaming (talk) 03:26, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@SamBroGaming: Sounds good. I am working on a current FAC submission so might be a few days, but I will try to give this article some feedback. ceranthor 14:57, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from Ceranthor
edit

As a general disclaimer, if I seem overly picky or harsh it's because I try to be extremely thorough for peer reviews so the article has a smoother time at FAC itself.

Lead
  • ", on either the Aigion fault or an unnamed offshore fault" - too much detail for the first sentence of the article
  • "The earthquake measured 6.4–6.5 on the moment magnitude scale (Mw ), had a maximum Modified Mercalli intensity (MMI) of VIII (Severe), and EMS-98 intensity of IX (Destructive)." - missing a verb for the last bit, and the second two clauses here read awkwardly. How about "The earthquake measured [...]; it had a MMMI of X and EMS-98 of Y."? Also, this is too soon to be introducing a general reader to earthquake terminology, especially since they're likely to only really understand the moment magnitude. I would move this further down in the first paragraph.
  • "The horizontal peak ground acceleration reached 0.54 g—the strongest ever recorded in Greece." - similarly, would move the destruction up a bit and this down a bit
  • "Monetary damages reached $660 million" - in US currency? Greek currency? Need to adjust for inflation by year too
  • "Only 15 minutes after the mainshock, a large aftershock caused further damage" - phrased awkwardly. Also, does the 660 include the aftershock? If so, I'd mention the aftershock before that number
  • "Other faults in the region" - see, the fault info would probably fit perfectly just before this sentence. Also, the faults don't really pose a risk, so I think the better way to phrase this would be "Other faults in the region have the potential to produce earthquakes up to [...], which would pose a risk to Aigio etc.
  • Infobox - why are certain values cited and not others? Should be consistent; also, I think aftershocks should contain the number of aftershocks not whether they happened or not
Tectonic setting
  • "One of these, the Aigion fault, showed surface rupturing after the earthquake" - you've gone too suddenly from the general geology to the specifics of the earthquake. Would rephrase this to more gently transition into a focus on the Aigion fault and its relationship with the 1995 quake
  • "There are other potentially dangerous faults in the area that pose a future risk to populations" - seems unclear how this is important for tectonic setting section
  • "The Mohorovičić discontinuity (the transition from crust to mantle) lies at around ~40 km (25 mi) in this region, so crustal normal faults do not extend deeper than that.[11]" - tone is too informal here; it would be easier for a lay reader to understand if you just say "crustal normal faults do not extend deeper than 40km because at that depth curst transitions to mantle at the discontinuity."
  • "The Aigion fault is an important fault structure that reactivated during this earthquake.[12][7]" - refs should go ascending order. Why do you introduce the Aigion fault then zoom back out to the discontinuity only to return to the Aigion fault. It would make more sense to just move all the Aigion fault content to the second paragraph I think.
  • "It has a throw of 200 m (660 ft), a dip (angle of inclination of fault surface from horizontal) of 55° to the north, and accommodates deformation in the area near Aigion.[7]" - Sentence could use some work. The "accommodates" bit doesn't really fit with the rest of the sentence and the comma after 660ft is unnecessary. I'd split into two sentences: "It has a throw of X and a dip of Y to the north. The fault accommodates deformation and explain what that means for a lay reader. Cut the "in the area near Aigion" bit since that doesn't add much.
  • " physical malforming of fan-deltas and associated alluvial plains.[7] This means that the Aigion fault is responsible for controlling the geomorphology of a 15 km (9.3 mi) long by 5 km (3.1 mi) wide area, which roughly corresponds with the dimensions of the fault itself.[7]" - would cut this down to "alluvial plains, controlling the geomorphology [...]" thus cutting out everything from "this means to responsible for" and combining the sentences
  • "The Aigio area was struck by similarly destructive events in 1748 and 1888" - to clarify, was it the area of Aigio proper? Or refs are a bit unclear on that?
Earthquake
  • Don't love the section title, since the whole article is really about the earthquake, but not sure a replacement quickly comes to mind other than perhaps Geology?
  • "Minutes before the Mw  6.4–6.5.[4][3][note 1] earthquake struck, people from various areas near the epicenter claimed to have heard the sound of a strong wind in otherwise calm weather." - Not a great topic sentence for the section. I'd start with an overview of the paragraph.
  • "multiple reports of strange animal activity such as dogs running away, and cats hiding.[13]" - hiding under, behind things? I think the source probably specified?
  • " Fifteen minutes after the mainshock,[6] the largest aftershock (Mw  5.6[note 2]) struck and had a maximum MMI of VI.[15]" - how many other aftershocks?
  • "This earthquake struck only a few weeks after another deadly earthquake struck Greece.[16]" - actually, more info about the prior earthquake might make good context for starting out this section
  • "This event took place" - now unclear whether you mean this earthquake or the prior one
  • " Agion fault[12][7] or an offshore fault.[8][17][2]" - refs ascending order
  • "0.20 g of vertical acceleration, which was double the maximum expected in the region.[7][2][4] " - based on what? Also, ascending ref order
  • "Ground velocity peaked at 52 cm (20 in)/s.[4] It was also the strongest ground motion ever recorded in Greece.[4] " - combine sentences
  • "The USGS ShakeMap for the event overestimates shaking near Aigio, likely as the result of the strong ground motion that was recorded there.[18] " - overestimates according to whom?
  • "The MMI of the event was VIII, while the maximum EMS-98 rating was IX.[4][3][6][4]" - you need to reintroduce the full names of these scales and provide values above and below the as well as the meaning of the VIII and IX ratings, I think, to provide context. Otherwise these values are fairly meaningless to a lay reader. Also, ascending ref order
  • "There are two main theories" - hypotheses, not theories
  • "6.7–7.2 km (4.2–4.5 mi).[12][7] " - ref order
  • "The length of surface ruptures that are visible on the earth are within reason what would be expected by the rupture of an earthquake of this size.[12]" - Very wordy. "The length of visible surface ruptures align with expectations for an earthquake of this size" or something similar is shorter and tighter
  • "t has modeled dimensions of either 9 km (5.6 mi) east to west, and 15 km (9.3 mi) along dip, with an average slip of 0.87 m (2 ft 10 in) along the fault, or a length of 12.61 km (7.84 mi), a width of 9.45 km (5.87 mi) with a slip of 1.483 m (4 ft 10.4 in) at a depth of 7.55 km (4.69 mi).[2][19]" - run-on sentence, and I would replace "it" with The fault. Also, modeled dimensions reads strangely, why not just "projected" or "estimated" or state a model estimates its dimensions as [...]?
  • "than true slip along the Aigion fault—as by proven by GPS and inSAR data." - typo
  • "on the Aigion fault and nearby Psathopyrgos fault" - future earthquake I presume? also, any more info on the psathopyrgos fault? Comes out of nowhere
Impact
  • "The shallow depth and strong ground motion" - why linking it now, when it's already been mentioned earlier in the article?
  • "The earthquake caused 26 deaths, 60–200 injuries, and made 4,000 people homeless." - grammar doesn't work here so I'd split into "caused x deaths and Y injuries; it also left [...]; also, "left" is a better word than made here I think
  • "Deaths occurred in parts of Aigio, at a collapsed apartment on Despotopoulon Street, and in Valimitika where a hotel collapsed." - as written, this makes it sound like Valimitika is a separate place rather than a village within Aigio. Better as "Deaths occurred in Aigio at [...] and in Valmitika. Would also suggest clarifying that Aigio is a municipal unit earlier on to make the geographic subdivisions more clear throughout the article
  • "Substantial damage was recorded in Aigio and Eratini.[3]" reword in active voice as "Aigio and Eratini also sustained substantial damage"
  • "The event was felt in Athens, Ioannina, Kalamai, Kardhitsa, Kozani, and Kefallinia.[3]" - anything in the source about how far these all are?
  • "The aftershock which occurred 15 minutes later caused additional damage including several building collapses.[6]" - if only the one aftershock, don't need to keep repeating 15 mins later each time
  • "Eliki river delta" - possibly capitalized? Same with Sleinountas?
Response
  • " French team of 15 professionals" - medical professionals?
  • "By the following day, UK, German, and Danish based" - should be hyphenateed
  • "Greece accepted the 20 houses from Italy.[30] " - very choppy, don't need a whole sentence for this as I think acceptance was implied
Controversy
  • "Panayiotis Varotsos, a University of Athens professor, used his controversial VAN technique which he developed to forecast earthquakes,[32] by using electrical signals.[32] " - he used by using... needs some copyediting particularly the last clause
  • "All of this led to the director of the Greek earthquake planning and protection agency, Dimitris Papanikolaou, being accused of ignoring multiple warnings by a public prosecutor in Athens." - far too much delay before the verb. Rewrite as "As a result, a prosecutor accused Dimitris [...] the director [...] of ignoring multiple warnings about the earthquake
  • "George Stavrakakis, acting director of the Geodynamic Institute of the National Observatory of Athens, stated that had the prosecutor listened to the director's colleagues, he would have made a different decision in regards to Papanikolaou.[32]" - similarly far too wordy, needs to be rephrased and pared down
Future hazard
  • Don't need seismic; that's implied
  • "the area in the southern Gulf of Corinth can host events up to Mw  6.9 in a multi-fault rupture scenario.[7][33]" - use a different verb than host --> generate? produce? create? spawn?
  • "The Psathopyrgos fault is a major fault structure" - all of this background should be mentioned in the earthquake/geology section. Should start this bit with "The return time between major earthquakes on the Psathopyrgos fault is of the order of 350 years, with an estimated uncertainty of 175 years."
  • "he return time between major earthquakes on the Psathopyrgos fault is of the order of 350 years, with an estimated uncertainty of 175 years." - this can be less wordy; "On the fault, earthquakes occur at a frequency of 350 years with [...]"
  • Same note about the Aigion fault paragraph; most of this is geology and should be presented far earlier in the article
  • "The recurrence interval between large ruptures on the Aigion fault are roughly 390 ± 195 years.[36]" - better rewritten in active voice, but this has a grammar error
  • Same note about Eliki fault paragraph with geology
  • "These faults are responsible for two known major events, although the role of the western fault is unknown, due to the lack of microseismicity along its western portion" - not sure what this sentence is saying, just a lot of jargon and confusion

I think this needs a good bit of work before it's ready for FAC. These are initial prose and organization comments before I leave some thoughts re sources, spotchecks, and images. ceranthor 02:51, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wow thank you for the brutally honest review. You definitely found a lot of little nitpicks I didn't notice, but I really appreciate that. Hopefully I can address all of your comments in a timely manner and then put it up for FAC. Thanks for the feedback! SamBroGaming (talk) 07:42, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sources
  • Have you looked into/exhausted the following sources?[1],[https://academic.oup.com/gji/article/204/1/591/635925, [2], brief but probably could add a sentence to damage section, [3], [4], and many more from a cursory Google Scholar search for "1995 aigio earthquake"? A good bit of the information might be redundant, but I think scouring more of these for additional details could really elevate this article.
  • For reference 3, spell out United States Geological Survey for at least the first reference mentioning them, and I would link it as well
  • Back to text quickly, spell out USGS in first article text mention here too "The USGS ShakeMap for the event overestimates shaking"
  • Would mention the language for reference 9, 21
  • Does ref 19 have an article title?
  • Spell out full name for ref 27, otherwise it's not obviously reliable (it is, but I had to double check the publisher to confirm, and the reader shouldn't have to do that!)
  • Would use capitalization for "2008 seismic engineering conference commemorating the 1908 Messina and Reggio Calabria earthquake" for consistency with other sources
  • Both footnotes should have references
  • Other than some concerns about whether more could be consulted to expand a bit more, references look good
  • What's the point of the further reading? Could those sources also add more to the article? If so, why not just use them?

Don't want to post image comments until we get through the above. Happy to respond to any questions you might have so far! Thanks, ceranthor 15:16, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Ceranthor: I have fixed most of the issues described above, however I do have a couple questions about what you meant by some of them.
  • The amount of aftershocks is stated to be thousands every day in the source, so I went with thousands. Is that specific enough?
  • Where is the typo in "than true slip along the Aigion fault—as by proven by GPS and inSAR data."? I can't seem to find one.
  • How exactly should I go about making it more clear what Aigio is versus Valimitika?
  • I'd clarify by adding "in the village of Valimitika". Might also be worth adding a colon after Aigio so it's clear the following locations are nested within Aigio as a unit. ceranthor 18:09, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • If there's nothing in the source about the distance the cities affected were from the epicenter, does any change need to be made to that sentence?
  • The 15 French professionals were referred to as "specialists" in the text, and I didn't know how else to paraphrase it.
  • Reference 9 is written in both English and French under one paper, so I am not sure I need to add a language mention there. For reference 21, how would I even mention language in it?
  • The further reading is for sources that have little details about aspects of the earthquake that may be useful for people researching the event, but were too niche or specific to fit into the article itself. I can remove it if you think it is unnecessary.
  • I guess my question is really how niche are they? This isn't a particularly long article, so it could presumably be expanded a bit more without going into too much detail? ceranthor 18:09, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The first one for example talks about the Coda Q of the earthquake and I have literally zero idea where that could possible fit in or what it even means, especially when the result of the study is that there is no change. The second one is largely a paper with aftershock locations, however it mentions regional tectonic setting (though nothing I can use in the article from it that hasn't been stated already). The third one uses lots of physics to figure out things about the aftershock sequence. Overall, I don't think I can use them. SamBroGaming (talk) 19:20, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ultimately, it's up to FAC reviewers to decide whether the available sources have been sufficiently exhausted. However, based on what you're saying, it definitely sounds like the second paper could be used to flesh out information about the aftershocks, as one example of how you could use other sources. ceranthor 20:06, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Anyway, other than those concerns, thank you so much for going through the article and finding all the little issues with it! I will look into the referenced sources and see if they have any information I can add into the article. Thanks, SamBroGaming (talk) 21:24, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@SamBroGaming: responded to these. I'll probably want to wait until you exhaust all potential references before I review the prose again, but happy to leave some comments on images in the coming days. ceranthor 18:09, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Ceranthor: I have now gone through all of the references you have brought up as well as the ones in the further reading and added any content I could find. I think I am ready for the image portion of the review now. SamBroGaming (talk) 01:49, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds good. I'll also try to read through the entire article and give more prose feedback. ceranthor 01:54, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Images

Think that covers everything. After these are fixed, I'll read through for another prose review. ceranthor 14:09, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Ceranthor: I have a few questions since I am not very good with images. How big should File:M-6.5-8-km-WNW-of-Galaxídhion_-Greece.png be? Also, isn't linking to an external url there against WP:ELPOINTS? How big should File:Gulf_of_Corinth_fault_map_with_1995_EQ_epicentre.png be as well? How do I use upright instead of thumb and fixed sizes? And finally how do I add alt text to each image? Thanks, SamBroGaming (talk) 07:11, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I played around with the upright settings and left as I thought made the most sense for reader ease of viewing. Feel free to tweak as you see fit; if the sizes are an issue, that will be raised in an image review at FAC. I took care of adding the source link too. As for alt text, see Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Accessibility/Alternative text for images, and I would recommend looking at recently promoted FAs for examples. Not too complicated. ceranthor 17:55, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Ceranthor: Sorry for the long delay, but I have fixed all of the issues you've presented. Let me know if there are any other issues at all. Thank you for taking the time to do this. SamBroGaming (talk) 07:57, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Think that's it - let me know if you end up nominating for FAC; give me a talk page ping! ceranthor 00:32, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@SamBroGaming: It has been over a month since the last comment on this PR. Are you still interested in receiving comments? If so, I suggest that you ask for comments at various Wikiprojects. If not, can this be closed? Z1720 (talk) 20:17, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Z1720 Sorry, I have been pretty busy with real life and haven't focused on this peer review as much as I should have. I would like to keep it open for a little longer, as I will complete the changes that Ceranthor suggests, let him do another check, and then hopefully we can close the peer review. SamBroGaming (talk) 03:21, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Z1720 This PR can now be closed. SamBroGaming (talk) 04:25, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Peer_review/1995_Aigio_earthquake/archive1&oldid=1142949635"