- This review is transcluded from Talk:Rose Canyon Fault/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Nominator: SamBroGaming (talk · contribs) 09:21, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Reviewer: RoySmith (talk · contribs) 22:18, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The right-lateral strike-slip fault extends for 30–50 km (19–31 mi) and slips at a rate of 1.1–2 mm (0.043–0.079 in)
rate should be distance per unit time, presumably "per year"., though again, there are no visible faults connecting the two
why "again"? That sounds like you're arguing with the reader.Shaking was widespread and felt in Los Angeles
tell the reader how far away that is.it is not entirely possible to prove
can this be said in a simpler way?Trenching of the fault reveals multiple ruptures
what does it mean to trench a fault?700±400 or 2000 years
I don't understand what that means.modeling an M6.9 earthquake
I'm guessing "M" means "magnitude", but explain this.will reach 0.55 g
I assume g means Gravity of Earth?which trigger tsunami
link tsunami
Spot checking [3, 8, 22, 2, 24] (in Special:Permalink/1193514274):
- 3 : Mostly verified, I'm not seeing where it talks about "the Rose Canyon Fault being one of the main faults in the ICB system". Could you walk me though that? As a side note, it's annoying (not your fault) that the pages are not numbered, so it's not entirely clear how to find p6. You might consider describing the location by section name, i.e. "Major Remaining Questions", or some other method which makes it easier to locate.
- 8 : Verified, but you might consider splitting your citations 8 and 9 to put them closer to the specific items they support. If nothing else, it'll make it easier on your reviewer :-)
- 22: I can only get to the abstract, could you please email me the full PDF?
- Verified, sort-of. The source says (Timing of Past Events) that the last rupture was probably less than 500 years ago by comparison to other faults, and greater than 225 year ago (relative to the 1995 date of the paper) because there's no historical record, which presumably would have existed had there been a rupture after the mission was established in 1769. So, basically verified, but I think saying "including a rupture that occurred" needs to be qualified with a "probably" and "shortly before" needs to be quantified a bit more; "Shortly before" sounds like a couple of years, even if 225 years is short by geologic timescales. I'd certainly mention the 1769 date and give a little more detail about how the upper and lower bounds were established.
- 2: Verified, but again, splitting the citations (1 and 2) would make things easier.
- 24: Verified, but once again, splitting the citations to be closer to the thing the support would be useful. I now see where "700±400 or 2000 years" comes from; one source says one thing, the other source says another. So you should be more explicit about this in the text, maybe "... variously estimated as 700+/-400 (citation) or 2000 (citation) years."
There's no issues with any of the other WP:GACR. The lead is of appropriate length and adequately summarizes the main body. The two images are both labeled as PD. The article is well-sourced to WP:RS. Earwig called out no issues with plagiarism and I didn't notice any problems during my source spot checks.
It's not a WP:GACR so I can't insist, but I strongly encourage you to provide WP:ALT texts for the images.
SamBroGaming: Other than that, I'm just waiting for you to deal with the problems I've noted above. Please ping me when you've done so. RoySmith (talk) 16:08, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- @RoySmith I changed the wording for every point outlined in green, and for sources 3 and 22 I changed the phrasing to better reflect what the sources said.
- Let me know if I need to make any minor tweaks.
- Thanks, SamBroGaming (talk) 00:27, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Looks good, thanks. This passes GA now. Nice job. RoySmith (talk) 00:56, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
