The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Usually referred to as the 1986 João Câmara earthquake – it is normal practise for the name of the article to be introduced earlier on (see MOS:FIRST). Consider amending to something like 'The 1986 João Câmara earthquake, which occurred on 30 November 1986 at 02:19 local time, was an earthquake…’.
(or Sismo de João Câmara de 1986 in Portuguese) – replace with ({{lang-pt|Sismo de João Câmara de 1986}}). Done I have expanded the lead overall to summarize the article for it to be fit for MOS:INTRO. Every issue in this section was covered. Reego4109:14, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
1 Tectonic setting
Link Rio Grande do Norte; swarm of earthquakes (Earthquake swarm).
This map (and the one that follows) do not seem to have come from reliable sources, and so I would question whether they should be used here.
Semi-done I removed the map of Gondwana with an explanation in the edit summary. This article leans a bit too much on its oversized sectonic setting section (which could/should be reduced). The map just strays way too far away from the topic Dawnseeker200019:08, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I will be going over the tectonic setting section and implementing fixes, might rewrite some parts of it as well. Thanks for pointing out. Reego4109:19, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
the Amazon, Paraná and Parnaíba basins - basins is redundant here.
Not done - The sentence would be off. Without basins, this is how the sentence would read: "Brazil is geologically dominated by three major sedimentary basins; the Amazon, Paraná and Parnaíba." They are called the Amazon Basin, the Paraná Basin and the Parnaíba Basin. Can't be shortened. Reego4113:51, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
6 years earlier, a mb 5.2 earthquake had also struck nearby, in Ceará - amend to ‘A mb 5.2 earthquake had also struck nearby in Ceará six years earlier’, to avoid starting he sentence with a numeral. Done
2.1 Characteristics
The single sentence is too small to stand on its own as a separate subsection. It should be merged with the paragraph above. DoneReego4109:42, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This very short paragraph could easily be absorbed into the section above it, which could then be given the title ‘Impact and response’. DoneReego4109:44, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
5 Notes
There is no need for Note a (and therefore this section).
6 References
Ref 1 (ISC) needs a retrieval date, for the sake of being consistent in this section. Ditto Refs 3, 11 and 13 (United States Geological Survey).
The title for Ref 5 (Labsis) should not be in capitals.
Refs 3, 11 and 13 should be formatted in the same way.
6.1 Sources
Dillenburg is cited in the References section (p.19), but also here (p. 380). It is not possible to tell which is correct. Done Might've forgotten that it was a book citation. Reego4114:05, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Consider adding ‘url-access=subscription’ for Dillenburg. Ditto Takeya et al.
Not done I've never had to do this with any wikipedia page I've worked with that has had sources with paid access. Freely accessible ones are marked anyway. Reego4114:05, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The article needs to conform to MOS:INTRO (GA criteria 1b) in order to be promoted. As of this moment, the article's lead does not summarize the article's sections adequately. Dawnseeker200000:53, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for addressing some of the above issues, Dawnseeker2000, and for your helpful suggestions. The article is only 950 words long at present, so the lead section, whilst it could do with some extra information (e.g. about the tectonic setting), it need not be more than a sentence or two longer. Amitchell125 (talk) 14:28, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
