Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/1968 Illinois earthquake/archive2

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 22:43, 30 August 2009 [1].

1968 Illinois earthquake[edit]

Nominator(s): ceranthor 11:03, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because I believe that the prose is now much better. During the last FAC, it had five supports, which spiraled into 4 supports/3 opposes. The content was still good, it was the prose that we had to take care of, which I can thank Malleus, Tony1, and of course, Steve for. Plus, this will be only the second earthquake FA, if promoted. ceranthor 11:03, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Done; thanks. Alt text is present, but needs some work. The infobox image lacks alt text. Some claims in the existing alt text cannot be verified by a non-expert who is looking only at the images, and need to be reworded or moved elsewhere or removed as per WP:ALT #What not to specify. These include "responsible for the earthquake", ", which is responsible for many earthquakes", and "630 feet (190 meters) tall, the highest monument in the United States". Eubulides (talk) 05:27, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I removed those parts, how does the text look now? The infobox image had alt text, FYI. ceranthor 11:21, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You used wrong parameter: "image alt" instead of "map alt". Ruslik_Zero 12:36, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, thank you Rus. ceranthor 13:30, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. The revised alt text all looks good, except for the new alt text "Map of the United States and part of Canada", which doesn't convey the gist of the map's info to the reader. It should give the reader a brief impression of what that map says about the intensity, e.g., intensity IV all the way to Lincoln, Nebraska, and intensity V throughout the southern half of Illinois and adjacent areas in Kentucky and Missouri. Eubulides (talk) 19:26, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ach, do I need to list all those states with I–II intensity? ceranthor 21:41, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, not at all: a brief description is fine. The point is to communicate the gist of the image, not every little detail. Eubulides (talk) 21:52, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I think I might've screwed it up. Would you mind fixing up the alt text on that one, to save both of us time? :) ceranthor 21:55, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What you had was pretty good, but I tried to improve it by mentioning the high-level intensities first, and focusing more on the high levels than the low. In hindsight I shouldn't have suggested Lincoln, Nebraska. My version may be a tad long though, and please feel free to revert. Eubulides (talk) 03:51, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I can not support because I contributed too much into this article, but I think it is close to FA standards. Ruslik_Zero 12:36, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - the images were reviewed at the last FAC by Jappalang. ceranthor 21:36, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support - Great article I liked it. But then again there is scarcely a disaster related article I don't. One question however...

"One man thought his son was "jumping up and down." - This was a full sentence in the article and first time I read it I immediately had a big "What?" come into my head. Mind clarifying what this adds to the article or at least eluding to what he thought his son was jumping on? Thanks. :) --Kuzwa (talk) 18:21, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed, I believe. Thanks for your support. ceranthor 21:50, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments - sources look okay, links not checked with the link checker tool, as it was misbehaving. Ealdgyth - Talk 20:17, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yay for short articles! ceranthor 21:11, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

These are just suggestions. If you prefer the current wording, you don't have to change it as far as me supporting or not.

"was the largest earthquake recorded" -> "was the largest earthquake ever recorded" or "was the largest recorded earthquake"

"Prairie State" maybe link it?

"caused considerable damage, cracking buildings' structures and toppling chimneys." seems a bit awkward.

"A future earthquake in the region is extremely likely" -> "Another earthquake in the region is extremely likely"

"suggest that earthquakes in the area are of moderate magnitude and can be felt over a large geographical area." -> "suggest that earthquakes in the area are of moderate magnitude but can be felt over a large geographical area."

"such as the 1972, 1974, and 1984 events" -> "in 1972, 1974, and 1984"

That's it for now. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 21:30, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support prose looks good enough. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 15:49, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. ceranthor 11:34, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support, at least on the writing, which is pretty good. Congrats. Captures the drama without losing WP's authority, I think.

Could the infobox map be a little larger? The text, including that in the key, is impossible to read. There's a map further down that looks (on my monitor) like a pic of a nasty skin disease: can that be larger? Please note that MoS expects detail and composition to play a role in image size.

Fixed the second image, I have no idea how to make the infobox map bigger, though. ceranthor 09:51, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And thank you, Tony. ceranthor 11:34, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I slightly increased the width of the infobox, if that is what you meant. Ruslik_Zero 18:31, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Several locals thought their furnaces had exploded, and one woman thought a bomb had exploded."—This has a trivial ring to it in the lead. Can it remain just in the main text below? (I removed it; in any case, a semicolon would have been better before the sentence.)
Roll's second mention ... Is it Professor Roll, Dr Roll? That or state his first name too? Just a little more to remind us of his mention way up in the previous section. "Also" can be removed. Tony (talk) 00:07, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed, the source says he is a reverend, but I don't think that's necessary to mention. ceranthor 09:51, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Continuing weak oppose At WP:GAC and the prior WP:FAC I have asked if it is possible to name municipalities or at least counties for the epicenter. I have not had any satisfactory response yet.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 02:29, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment What is wrong with the : in the time of my signature above. It is causing a line break.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 15:11, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tony, this is not an actionable oppose. No information was given at all about where it was in Illinois, otherwise I would have put it into the article. ceranthor 09:41, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it was in Hamilton County. I added information. Ruslik_Zero 10:38, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ha, I stand corrected. I must have missed it somehow. ceranthor 10:44, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the added content. It helps me a great deal.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 15:14, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can the first two skimpy paragraphs in Geography be combined?

~~The second time that David Roll is mentioned do we need his full name?~~--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 03:20, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tony—the other one—suggested that there was enough distance between that and the first mention of Roll to make it necessary. YMMV. Steve ^T • C 06:52, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support. I supported in the previous FACs and feel the improvements made since then have only added to the quality of an article that was already sufficient. JKBrooks85 (talk) 03:01, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot. ceranthor 11:34, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm still finding ce issues and sentences that need smoothing out, unsure about this sentence:

Since 1968, other earthquakes have occurred in the same region in 1972, 1974, and 1984 events, and, most recently, 2008.
What is a nodal plane? It's redlinked, but not defined for the reader.
(suggests ... and to ?) This faulting suggests dip slip reverse motion, and to a horizontal east–west axis of confining stress.
(At what time?) At that time, no faults were known in the immediate epicentral region ...

I stopped there ... let's get a bit more work on the prose. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:53, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I fixed your examples. Nev1 is probably going to visit and provide some comments, hopefully some prose ones, too. ceranthor 01:08, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The footnote (not references) system is broken. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:03, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've noted this before, I think, but I have no idea what happened with the alignment. ceranthor 01:08, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I fixed footnotes. Ruslik_Zero 07:42, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Once again, you are awesome. ceranthor 11:28, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support and comments by Nev1 (talk · contribs)

I like the svg map in the infobox, it's much better than the map used when I last saw the article back in May. It's a shame it's not bigger, but there's nothing that can be done about that while using the infobox.
I've changed "...with a Richter scale magnitude of 5.4" to "...measuring 5.4 on the Richter scale" as it's a phrase I've heard more often with earthquakes (Google sort of backs me up [2] [3]).
The list of recorded earthquakes in the region (ie: 1838, 1857, 1876,[a] 1881, 1882, 1883, 1887, 1891, 1903, 1905, 1912, 1917, 1922,[b] 1934, 1939, 1947, 1953, 1955, and 1958) might be better summarised as "Before 1968, there were 22(?) earthquakes recorded in the region" with a footnote containing the details of the individual years. That way, the reader isn't bombarded with a string of numbers, but those interested in the subject can still find the information in the article. The list of quakes after 1968 isn't so long so I think listing the years is fine.

I think I'll opt to keep it, if you don't mind.

Fair enough. Nev1 (talk) 22:32, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Could the first first two paragraphs of the geography section be merged? They seem to be linked. If they were merged, "The magnitude of the quake reached 5.4 on Richter scale" could be moved to after "During the quake, surface wave and body wave magnitudes were measured at 5.2 and 5.54 respectively".

Done.

It's just a question of style and certainly isn't important, but the sources sub-section of the references section might be better titled bibliography as all of the links in the references section are sources really.

Done.

The first sentence of the third paragraph is a bit jargon-y. If it could be made a bit simpler that would be great, but if not I don't think it matters too much (I see attempts have already been made, ie: "one is always a fault plane, the other an auxiliary plane"). I would expect that most of the people who read this article will be familiar with and understand such terms, in which case I don't view it as a problem and there's only so much it can be dumbed-down without clogging up the article.

What would you suggest? I'm stuck on making it simpler.

I'm afraid I can't suggest a rewording because I don't fully understand what's being said. As I said though, there's only so much that can be done without labouring the point and becoming tangential, so I'm fine with it as it is. It will be understandable to most people who look for this article. Nev1 (talk) 22:32, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Would it be correct to say "director of seismology at Loyola University" rather than "Loyola University's director of seismological studies"? It's simpler, but if my suggestion is incorrect, obviously it shouldn't be used. Also, should Loyola University link to Loyola University Chicago?

I would assume so. ceranthor 22:28, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've made some copy edits, but I strongly recommend that Ceranthor checks them over to make sure I haven't changed any meanings. Especially this edit as American geography isn't my strong point and my rearrangement may have introduced errors. I don't see my comments as a reason for this article not to be a Featured Article, but it would be nice if they could be addressed. I'm happy to lend my support to the article. Nev1 (talk) 20:23, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot, and no, you didn't change the meaning for any of them. You made the wording better.

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.