Talk:1995 Aigio earthquake

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:1995 Aigio earthquake/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Dora the Axe-plorer (talk · contribs) 14:44, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   The article is not too far from reaching GA status but there are a few issues that needs to be addressed before passing. I believe the nominator is capable of improving it further. I have highlighted the issues which needs to be addressed below. Dora the Axe-plorer (explore) 08:06, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

• The reference Bernard et al. 1997, McNeill et al. 2005 & McNeill et al. 2007 makes no mention of "Egion fault" which is used in the article. I assume you are referring to the "Aigion fault". Is there a reason for the rename? Dora the Axe-plorer (explore) 05:25, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Other studies refer to it by Egion fault, such as Koukouvelas 1998 and Koukouvelas & Doutsos 1996, and even the Egio fault, such as Lekkas et al 1998. Most sources do appear to reference it as Aigion, so I will change the fault name to Aigion. SamBroGaming (talk) 06:01, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Fixed SamBroGaming (talk) 06:03, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

• There is a large discrepancy in the range of magnitude, I'm talking about the M_w scale here; M_w  6.1–6.6 is an incredibly huge discrepancy. I see you referenced Masood's Nature article to obtain the lowest figure. Can you be so sure the 6.1 in question is measured with the M_w  scale? I'm not sure where 6.6 M_w  came from, I assume it's a typo from the USGS event page figure. Dora the Axe-plorer (explore) 05:25, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

I must have made a typo as I looked through my references and could not find the 6.6. Fixed in the article now SamBroGaming (talk) 05:46, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

The Nature article gave "magnitude 6.1" but is that M_w  6.1? Dora the Axe-plorer (explore) 05:50, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

It seems like that magnitude subtype wasn't specified. Remove it unless you can find a figure that provides the subtype. Dora the Axe-plorer (explore) 05:54, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

I have removed Masood's paper in nature entirely SamBroGaming (talk) 00:46, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

• The article provides multiple magnitude and range of depths; can this be standardized by using the ISC-GEM's earthquake catalog (6.5 M_w , 15 km depth, 38.408°N 22.278°E)? Most GA articles use the ISC-GEM as their data is considered final. The M_s  and M_L  figures can be mentioned in the article body but for the sake of presentation, remove them from the infobox. Dora the Axe-plorer (explore) 05:25, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

I feel like they are presented quite neatly in the infobox but they feel a bit much in the main text. Could I perhaps remove them from the text instead of the infobox? As for the depth, various studies have come up with different depths and I feel that specific scientific studies on the event take precedence over an agency's estimate. SamBroGaming (talk) 05:47, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

The infobox shouldn't be cluttered with that many info. Spare the details for the body text. The Ms and Mw figures are frequently referenced in scientific lit. so you may limit to just mentioning these in the article while excluding ML (which has only been featured in one study). Adding too many magnitude figures also causes excessive referencing which doesn't look great. Dora the Axe-plorer (explore) 06:09, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Alright, will remove from infobox and explain better in text. I will remove the Masood citation, however Tselentis 1996 has it as 6.2 M_L  as well, so that should still hold up. SamBroGaming (talk) 06:23, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Fixed magnitude, unsure what to do about depth SamBroGaming (talk) 06:26, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

If you prefer these scientific studies' results, you will have to use their info consistently and as a whole. These agencies and studies determine the seismological parameters through different methods so results would vary. Nick picking these info wouldn't be wise. Currently you have included a range of focal depths based on multiple studies, that means you have to also include different values into the same parameter if they were also defined in the citations. Eg; if a specific paper's depth was used, follow the epicenter coord given in that paper. Likewise if you gave multiple depths, you have to give multiple coordinates. This is why I advice using the ISC-GEM catalog and I see no evidence that results of a scientific study is superior over that. Dora the Axe-plorer (explore) 07:49, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Is there any way to incorporate the epicenter location of the studies into the article to fit these guidelines then? I see no reason to completely disregard research papers focusing on the event just because it is more convenient to have a single central source. I feel it would defeat the point of being a good article if I relied solely on the ISC-GEM catalogue for this reason. Please tell me if I can go about it some other way. SamBroGaming (talk) 22:58, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

• Under Impact header, line 5, can you clarify on what "the sea moved 2–3 m (6 ft 7 in – 9 ft 10 in) closer to land" means? Is it describing a long-term effect ie. land subsidence, or a temporary one like a tsunami? Dora the Axe-plorer (explore) 05:25, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

  You did this after asking, so thank you. SamBroGaming (talk) 05:50, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

The paper says "In Erateini, the sea advanced inland for 2 3 m., in areas covered by fluvial and coastal deposits; no such a case was observed where alpine rock outcropped." I was not very sure how to interpret this, so perhaps you could help me phrase it better in the article. SamBroGaming (talk) 05:50, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

It's under the header Coastline changes so clarify that this observation is an example of coastal changes which occurred after the earthquake. The paper (Koukouvelas 1998) has a number of interesting details not mentioned in the article. A lot of the details have been left out and summarized. It would be nice to give further elaboration. Dora the Axe-plorer (explore) 06:20, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Fixed the coastal changes thing, will add more details when I have more time this week. SamBroGaming (talk) 06:30, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

I've reworded it a bit. There are more examples given so take the time to include those as well. Dora the Axe-plorer (explore) 06:48, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

A lot of sources aren't used to their full extent. The Nature article is one of these; it's about a legal dispute between seismologists over earthquake prediction regarding the event. This earlier Nature article provides some additional info. Dora the Axe-plorer (explore) 07:05, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

I can add a controversy section over the controversy surrounding the lack of prediction over the earthquake as well. SamBroGaming (talk) 22:59, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

Done SamBroGaming (talk) 05:49, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

• Response section is sufficiently well written. Dora the Axe-plorer (explore) 05:25, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

• A bit more pressing is the article's claim on the scientific aspects of the earthquake. The article says that the earthquake "may have taken place along the Aigion fault". I find none of the references supporting this. Koukouvelas 1998 says the earthquake reactivated the fault and generated a surface rupture for 7.2 km. However, McNeill 2007 said that "no historic earthquakes are confirmed on the Aigion fault". Furthermore supported by another paper (it's not used in the article FYI): "In 1995, a magnitude 6.2 earthquake occurred 15 km NNE of Aigion, on a very low dip normal fault. Seismological, GPS and SAR data show that the earthquake is not located on the Aigion fault, but that it caused small coseismic ruptures along the fault". Can you rewrite this part—it appears the Aigion fault isn't the source of the earthquake, however these sources mention a "low-angle normal fault" so stick to that. Dora the Axe-plorer (explore) 07:29, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

  You are correct in this, and I will fix that portion. It was the large aftershock that took place along the Aigion fault, and I will change the article to reflect that. SamBroGaming (talk) 23:01, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

  Koukouvelas 1998 actually does say it takes place on the Egion fault. SamBroGaming (talk) 23:22, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

  Bernard 1997 et al also mentions the possibility of an aigion fault partial rupture; "The very high ground acceleration in Aigion (0.5 g peak acceleration record on the NOA accelerometer) may indeed have induced the observed slip in the shallow part of the Aigion fault" SamBroGaming (talk) 01:30, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

  @SamBroGaming From my understanding of that quoted source, the strong ground motion caused slip to occur on the fault at a superficial level. Something on the lines of triggered slip perhaps? Dora the Axe-plorer (explore) 01:44, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

  Fixed SamBroGaming (talk) 05:49, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

Alright, so I believe I have completed everything you have asked for me to fix here. Please let me know if I have missed any of your suggestions, or if more needs to be done to get this article to good article status. Thanks, SamBroGaming (talk) 05:51, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

The article is well-researched and an improvement from previously. I've made additional clean ups and copyediting. Reference Lekkas 1998 can be used to further expand to broaden the article coverage in a slightly in-depth manner. After that, I can pass the article. Dora the Axe-plorer (explore) 08:13, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

I have added to it as best as I could. SamBroGaming (talk) 08:37, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

Comments

I'll go through the text making mainly minor tweaks that you can reverts if you don't like my changes. More substantial comments I'll put here

• What is the order of your sources? Alphabetic by first author is normal Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:44, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
• Personally, I'm not a fan of linking to sites that don't give full content, it seems to be promoting a pay-to-view site.
• I've added a few links, such as epicentre, plea check that other technical terms have links or explanations.
• I don't think we link countries
• You may be asked to defend your Further reading. Some editors take the view that if it's not used as a reference, it's superfluous

@Jimfbleak

• I will go through the sources tonight and order them alphabetically as currently they are just by order of original usage.
• I mean I am linking to either the doi or to where the doi points as I feel that would be the bet place to link. As these are research papers, few of them are free to read explicitly, so unless you want me to literally link to their sci-hub's I doubt much can be done on that front.

• I understand that, but you really don't need a url link if you have a doi. I see that my most recent FA had refs with both though, so probably best to leave for now anyway Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:42, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

• I will go through the article and check for wikilinks on tech terms tonight
• Not sure what you mean by not linking countries. If you mean not wikilinking to them, that can be removed.

• Yes, wikilinks Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:42, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

  I believe I did that now. Not sure that it was quite what you were asking, but it is what I understood. SamBroGaming (talk) SamBroGaming (talk) 22:04, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

• If people don't like my further reading and want to remove it, alright have at it. They have largely the same content as the other references, so they are not crucial to the article.

SamBroGaming (talk) 14:31, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

• You shouldn't normally have any references or notes in the lead, it's a summary of the body of the text which should be fully referenced anyway.

• Your text has a lot of technical detail, and if you are going to include that you must help your reader. For example, you have sentences like a dip angle of 50–60° with a strike of 100°, but dip and strike are nowhere linked or explained. Please check that readers aren't having to guess what your seismological terms might mean
• In future threats, you have a bucket-load of references, eg The fault is composed of two main segments: an offshore and an onshore portion, and they extend for 8.621–12 km (5.357–7.456 mi) combined.[17][36][7][8][34] . Are five references really necessary to confirm a short sentence? It's unusual to see more than three at a time
• up to 1,887 houses "up to" and an exact figure don't really work together
• You have a long section on future threats, no mention in the lead, which looks a bit short anyway.

• We normally archive web pages because they are liable to disappear or change. I'm not sure why you are archiving journal articles, which are stable, especially as in many cases you are not even archiving full text, just an abstract Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:18, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

@Jimfbleak I have gone through all of your concerns and done as much as I can to fix them. I alphabetized the sources, unlinked countries, removed references from lead, explained technical terms, removed most instances of over referencing (or at least made it clearer which ref was used when), fixed the 1887 houses thing, and added future threat to the lead. The only remaining issues are the site linking in refs, the further reading, and the archived urls. With the site linking in the refs, you told me not to touch them for now so I haven't. The further reading is not crucial to the article, so while I haven't touched it, it being removed wouldn't be the biggest of deals. With the archive urls, I could also go through each ref and remove it for the ones where it's not necessary, however I am not sure that the archive urls being there actually takes away from the ref, so I feel it would be fine to leave them. Otherwise, I have tidied up the article. What else can I do to improve it to FA standards further? Thanks, SamBroGaming (talk) 01:03, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

I think you might as well take it to FAC. It is a a certainty that you will get comments on things I've missed, other editors' preferences and MoS things I've not picked up on. Even with my long experience at FAC and numerous re readings, I'm always astonished by how many things I get picked up on. FAC will also help to see if there is a view on links and such like. You will have to be prepared to grit your teeth and deal with sometimes contradictory requirements. I don't know if you review at FAC, but it's a good idea to do so if you have an active FAC yourself, since there is an element of "you scraatch my back..." which will help you to get reviewers. Let me know when you nominate, and good luck Jimfbleak - talk to me? 09:05, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

Alright, thank you for the advice! In my peer review, I was told to start reviewing FACs to familiarize myself with the process, as well as to familiarize reviewers with me, so I plan to do that a little before putting this up for FAC. I appreciate the help, so thank you very much. Thanks, SamBroGaming (talk) 18:18, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

Changes to "Tectonic setting" and "Future threat" sections

I've made some changes to these two sections.

The tectonic setting for the Gulf of Corinth Rift is complicated by two things. Firstly, only a relatively small group of geoscientists refer to an Aegean Sea Plate, so most sources don't even mention it, let alone the location or nature of the boundaries, so probably best not to get into too much detail about that. We know that the whole area is currently affected by extensional tectonics, which is probably enough. Secondly, the significance of the topographic depressions that make up the Hellenic Trench is debated, do they represent the expression of the Hellenic subduction zone at the Earth's surface (as suggested by Xavier Le Pichon in 1979) or are they just structures within the forearc (as suggested by Le Pichon in 1982). It all depends on your view of the nature of the Mediterranean Ridge, which lies to the south of the trench(es) - if you accept it as an accretionary complex, then only the second model can be true. In fact I have been unable to find any research in the last forty years that suggests that this is not the origin of the Mediterranean Ridge. To make our lives difficult, however, the first model of the trenches representing the surface expression of the subduction zone still turn up regularly in papers (e.g. here), which unhelpfully just ignore the Mediterranean Ridge issue. See also the discussion at Talk:Hellenic subduction zone#Location of subduction, which goes into more detail.

I changed "Future threat" to "Future seismic hazard", as that is generally how it's referred to. The Gulf of Corinth Rift is not itself a divergent boundary, nor is it part of one, just an expression of the extension going on across the Aegean.

I don't find the map particularly helpful and I'm a little concerned about copyright issues, but I will check that as soon as I can. Mikenorton (talk) 20:15, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

I've replaced the map, although not for any copyright issues. The new map shows topography and the names of the faults are now clear. I've also added the location of the epicentre and a scale. Mikenorton (talk) 21:59, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

Image sizes

I don't understand why are the images under Geology and Future hazards are so absurdly huge. I understand in the FA review this was to address the small text within the images to make reading easier. But this creates an ugly MOS:SANDWICH effect. Dora the Axe-plorer (explore) 11:53, 3 August 2023 (UTC)