Talk:1985 Mexico City earthquake/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

I will be happy to take on the GAC review for this claim. H1nkles (talk) 19:58, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review Philosophy

When I do an article review I like to provide a Heading-by-Heading breakdown of suggestions for how to make the article better. It is done in good faith as a means to improve the article. It does not mean that the article is not GA quality, or that the issues listed are keeping it from GA approval. I also undertake minor grammatical and prose edits. After I finish this part of the review I will look at the over arching quality of the article in light of the GA criteria and make my determination as to the overall quality of the article. H1nkles (talk) 20:01, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

GA Checklist

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Is it well written?
A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
The article just needs a little prose cleaning. Remove some awkward wording and disconnected references to other parts of the article.

B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
Need to combine/expand stub paragraphs
Is it verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check?
A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:

B. Reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose):

C. It contains no original research:

D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
Is it neutral?
It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
A couple of questionable POV statements need to be addressed.
Is it stable?
It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:
Lead photo should be better.

B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
Overall:
Pass or Fail:
The article is very close, but no response to suggestions to fix requires me to fail it. Please fix and renominate. H1nkles (talk) 16:23, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding Lead

For an article of such length, the lead seems oddly brief. There is no mention, for example, of structures and historic sites that were effected. There is also no mention of the effects of the earthquake outside of Mexico and its over-arching legacy in Mexican history. Per WP:LEAD the lead can be up to 3 paragraphs and should provide a good summary of the article. I think the lead should be expanded to include more info, albeit in a summary fashion, from the article.
This quote is confusing to me, "...followed by two aftershocks: one on 21 September 1985 of magnitude 7.5 and the third occurring seven months later on 30 April 1986 of magnitude 7.0." You say there are two aftershocks, but then you refer to the second one as "third". Can you clarify for me?
Per WP:UNITS please list both metric and imperial units of measurement. H1nkles (talk) 20:52, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The photo at the top of the article is a very poor quality picture to lead off an article. What about replacing it with the one of the collapsed office building? Just a suggestion. You do need a caption for this photo if you intend to use it here.
In the table to the right of the lead you mention casualties as 10,000 dead. Since you indicate that this number is controversial you should list casualties as approx. 10,000 so as to acknowledge the potential discrepencies in the data. H1nkles (talk) 20:57, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the seismic event

You indicate twice here how far Mexico City is away from the epicenter, once is enough and again it should be listed in both metric and imperial units of measurement, with metric first.
Quote, "The main temblor was foreshown by a quake of magnitude 5.2 on 28 May 1985 (magnitude 5.2), and was followed by two significant aftershocks: one on 20 September 1985 of magnitude 7.5 lasting thirteen seconds and the third occurring seven months later on 30 April 1986 with magnitude 7.0 lasting ten seconds.[2]" I don't know what "temblor" is, is it a type-o or a vocab word I'm unfamiliar with? Also you again refer to the 30 April quake as the third quake, I'm confused how it could be the third. "foreshown" is not a good word to use here, consider rewording the first section of this quote to flow better.
"The energy released" paragraph is a stub, consider combining with the one beneath it as they are related.
Last time I'll say it, add imperial units of measure to your meatric units. H1nkles (talk) 21:10, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding Mexico City's vulnerability to earthquakes

The paragraph starting with "On the bed of the historic lake..." is a stub paragraph, please either expand or combine with another paragraph.
Remove the word "unfortunately" from the paragraph about seismic pitch. It isn't proper for editors to give opinions or place value judgements in their article. Even though there really isn't an issue of POV, it's still not encyclopedic.
Overall this section is well written for GA quality. I suggest only these minor fixes. H1nkles (talk) 17:05, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding Damage from the earthquake

Metro service

Consider removing this sentence, "This caused people to get out of the tunnels from wherever they were and onto the street to try to get where they were going.[16]" It is unnecessary and duplicative.
Your reference in this section is one in-line citation at the end of the section. Please reference this section better.

Damage to hospitals

What is a secondary and tertiary hospital? Are you talking about smaller clinics? This should be clarified. H1nkles (talk) 17:51, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Quote, "The National Medical Center of the Mexican Social Security Institute (IMSS) was considered the most important hospital complex in Latin America with over 2,300 beds and the largest medical library in the country." This statement must be sourced. Who considers it the most important complex in Latin America? Per WP:Weasel words this should be revised.
Quote, "The ISSSTE hospital for government workers lost 36 percent of its capacity." You spell out the IMSS acronym, please do so with ISSSTE as well.
This section is poorly referenced. You give a lot of facts and figures and one in-line citation at the end of the main paragraph. It should be better referenced.
The last paragraph is a stub and should be attached to the previous paragraph. H1nkles (talk) 18:39, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding Human toll

Quote, "Part of the explanation for that was the hour in which the earthquake struck, approximately 7:20am, when people were awake but not in the many schools and office buildings that were severely damaged." Reword "that" replace with what "that" is referring to, I think it's the relatively low death toll.
You don't need to wikilink Asia and Latin America. Those links don't really add to the article. Also you mention Latin America in the previous section but don't wikilink it. It doesn't make sense to then wikilink it later. For the most part your wikilinks are excellent, just be sure to remove ones like these two that don't really apply specifically to the content of the article.
The IMSS baseball field sentence is a stub paragraph and should be combined with YOSHI the paragraph above.
Quote, "Some sources state that more than 50,000 families lost their homes, and INEGI reports that 700,000 people in the Federal District and the suburbs in the State of Mexico lost their homes." These sources should be cited or it is another example of weasel wording. Also per above, spell out INEGI. H1nkles (talk) 18:57, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding Emergency Response

First paragraph is two sentences, consider expanding or combining.
Quote, "Patients had to be moved from damaged hospitals, especially the National Medical Center. Many of these patients were critically ill. 1,900 patients were successfully moved from here, without any deaths, in just four hours." Patients were removed from where? You say several hospitals were damaged. consider rewording. H1nkles (talk) 23:26, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding Memorable Sites

Hospital Juarez

Check tense in the first paragraph. You switch from past tense to present progressive in, "It was founded in 1847, in converting the old convent...."
What do you mean by one of the most visible? As in high profile, notable etc. Or do you mean literally the tallest/site line most visible around the city?
Quote, "Rescue workers soon arrived to take start digging through to rubble", I think there's a type-o here, sentence doesn't make sense.
Write up phonetically numbers less than ten.
Quote, "However, the most memorable story to come from this event". "The most memorable" is a matter of opinion/POV. Please remove.
Aside from the last paragraph your in-line citations consist of one cite at the end of each paragraph. Please update your facts with in-line citations throughout the paragrpahs. H1nkles (talk) 19:10, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sewing Factory

This sentence, "On Manuel José Othón Street, in the Colonia Obrera neighborhood, near Metro station San Antonio Abad, was one of the many garment factories located in the city center area." does not have a subject. The reader can infer it is the Sewing Factory but it should have a subject anyway.
The issue of the working conditions at the factory is not germaine to this subject. Your coverage of it is brief but still not really on topic. Consider removing. If you disagree please tell me your thinking on this and I will consider it.
This section has a lot of prose issues, a thorough prose massage should be done. H1nkles (talk) 19:45, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Central Communications Center

This section is fine, a little short, are there any ramifications to having no long distance communication that hampered the rescue effort or emergency response? H1nkles (talk) 16:23, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding Conjunto Pino Suárez

This section is fine. H1nkles (talk) 21:34, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding Hotel Regis

You duplicate the sentence about the only surviving wall contains a mural done by Diego Rivera. Remove the second mention of the fact and wikilink Diego Rivera in the first sentence about him.

Regarding Apartment complexes in Tlatelolco

Quote, "...it was considered the most important complex of its kind in the country." Weasel words, who considered it the most important complex of its kind in the country? Reference it if you're going to say it, otherwise remove it.
Quote, "During these rescue efforts, a nearby building, called Yucatán, began to creak noisily, causing everyone to run and abandon the site temporarily, but it did not collapse". This sentence is not very clean. "Noisily" isn't a good word to use, I'm not even sure it is a word really, and is unnecessary since you say it creaked, "noisily" seems unnecessary detail.
This section needs a thorough prose massage. Examples like this do not meet GA criteria, "All the buildings suffered damage but along with the collapsed Nuevo León building, buildings such as those called Veracruz, Yucatán and Oaxaca suffered severe damage such as severely cracked foundations."
Combine this stub paragraph, "Buildings A1, B2 and C3 of the Multifamiliar Juárez complex partially-collapsed with a total of nine structures eventually being demolished." with the one above it. H1nkles (talk) 21:43, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding Televisa studios

Again, noisily is not a good word to use.
Quote, "The studio building was reconstructed in 1995 and ended in 2000." What do you mean by, "...and ended in 2000." Do you mean contruction ended in 2000? It's not clear from the context or the sentence. H1nkles (talk) 22:06, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Other structures

This section is fine. H1nkles (talk) 22:42, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding Geological and structural engineering issues

This sentence doesn't make sense, "A survery of the damage done by the government found that few buildings from one to five stories suffered serious damage...." From the way it is written it appears as though there was a survey of the damage done by the government, in other words, the government did the damage and there was a survey done about that. Please reword.
This sentence is also poorly worded w/in the context of the paragraph, "When the buildings were built seemed to have an effect as well." Please reword.
Quote, "However, none of these regulations had an event like 1985’s in mind when passed." Regulations don't have anything "in mind". The legislators did (or in this case didn't).
Quote, "In second place were buildings from before 1957, possibly because they were weakened by the earlier earthquakes." This is another poorly worded sentence that tries to link to somewhere else in the section but it is unclear where. What was first place? I think you're talking about ranking the buildings with the most damage but the link between first and second place is lost somewhere. Consider dropping reference to second place and rewording.
A prose review of this section should be done. The review should fix these issues and more that I don't have time to list. H1nkles (talk) 22:52, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding Political Consequences

Regarding Government response

Quote, "The military was deployed to patrol streets to prevent looting after a curfew was imposed,[31] as well as rescue, sanitary efforts and other," And other what? This isn't clear.

Quote "Those belonging to the party received preference and those considered opposition received the runaround" Watch POV in this statement. Also "runaround" is not an encyclopedic word to use here, please change. You must cite this statement along with the sentence directly before it. H1nkles (talk) 22:57, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding Community response

The paragraph that starts with, "CUD and other popular movement representatives met with head of the Secretariat of Urban Development and Ecology (SEDUE) Guillermo Carrillo Arena on 27 September 1985" needs better citations within the paragraph. You list a lot of facts and information in the paragraph and have one cite at the end, please reference the information within the paragraph so that readers can do further research on specific information.
Quote, "After the government created the Programa de Renovación Habitacional Popular (PRHP) on 14 October to help deal with the crisis, friction between the government and community groups grew again, PRHP used PRI-membership as a requirement to be included into the census of damnificados." This is a runon sentencen, consider splitting.
Same citation issues in the paragraph starting with this sentence, "In March, only weeks after taking office, Camacho Solís changed the charged atmosphere between SEDUE and the community groups." H1nkles (talk) 18:02, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding Weakening of the PRI

Quote, "...and a contracting economy causing serious political programs for the PRI." I think you mean "problems" not "programs" but I'm not sure.
Quote, "President de la Madrid made relatively few public appearances afterwards and during those he did,he received strong heckling, in contrast to the near-reverence that past presidents enjoyed at such events." reword this sentence, it is awkward.
Quote, "Shortly after the event, the PRI began to face serious challenges at the polls, forcing it to rig elections, sometimes in an embarrassingly messy way." Watch POV with this statement. I can't immediately verify the source. I would strongly recommend removing allegations that the PRI rigged elections. H1nkles (talk) 18:12, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding Effects of earthquake in other parts of Mexico

This section is fine. H1nkles (talk) 18:14, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding Legacy

Three stub paragraphs (one sentence) in a row, "Despite warnings and predictions, in 2005, an estimated 32 million people live in the high-risk lakebed area.[1]

As of 2005, there are still two camps where approximately eighty families are still waiting for relocation from the earthquake.[1]

Centuries-old structures have been reinforced across the city and new construction must comply with very strict codes.[36]" that need to be combined or expanded. H1nkles (talk) 18:18, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding Torre Mayor

This section is fine, a photo of the building with be great since you describe the dampeners and that they can be seen from the exterior. H1nkles (talk) 18:20, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding Notes

On the notes that are websites try to include at least the publisher of the site. The publisher is usually pretty easy to find. The author is also good to add if one is attributed to in the article.
Your accessdates are good and fairly recent.
The Hotle Regis site is in Spanish though this isn't indicated in the Notes section. Same for the Centro de Instrumentación y Registro Sísmico, A. C., CIRES – MÉXICO" site. H1nkles (talk) 18:25, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Overall Opinion

The article is well sourced and broad in it's coverage of the topic.
As mentioned above there are a few paragraphs where the in-line citation comes at the end of the paragraph and the reader, I suppose, is to assume that all the facts in the paragraph are referenced in this citation. I strongly recommend adding in-line cites after the major assertions within the paragraph, it adds credibility and helps the reader know where to look for more information.
This article could do with a good prose edit. Nothing really glaring but just lots of little things like duplicative words, "noisily" (see above), and disconnected references to other parts of the article make it difficult to read.
Make sure your units of measurement are in both metric and imperial format.
Check a couple of the POV statements mentioned above, if you disagree with my assertion that they violate NPOV then please discuss it with me, I'm open to hearing your thoughts.
The rest of my suggestions are above, I feel as though the article is decent though it needs some polish before I can pass it. I'll put the article on hold until 1/29/09 at which point I will review for final GA determination. H1nkles (talk) 18:32, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

GA Fail

It has been two weeks since the review started and the article has been on hold for a week. There has been no movement on the article nor response to my suggestions. At this point I will have to fail it. If there is an interested editor that would like to jump in, make the fixes and renominate it then the article should pass. H1nkles (talk) 16:03, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]