Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/2007–2008 Nazko earthquakes/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 Karanacs 17:47, 11 February 2010 [1].

2007–2008 Nazko earthquakes

[edit]
Nominator(s): BT (talk) 10:21, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Toolbox

I am nominating this for featured article because I feel the article is complete. A fairly small article, yes, but the earthquake swarm consisted of minor earthquakes that were too small to cause damage or to be felt by people; the largest earthquake was only magnitude 3.9. Thus, only seismic devices were able to record the earthquakes. But the swarm is still notable, given the fact that these are only recorded earthquakes in the area it took place from, they caused interest to scientists and they were even mentioned on CBC Television. I searched the internet to gather as much information as I could from reliable sources, but some were just discussions from people on chatterbox websites that were interested in the earthquake swarm from when it began in 2007. The article is in a good state for such a small series of earthquakes..... BT (talk) 10:21, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I checked myself and everything appears to be ok. There are no disambiguation links or dead external links. BT (talk) 04:53, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Alt text done; thanks. Alt text is present (thanks), but it doesn't convey the essence of the maps, namely, the useful information that they convey to the sighted reader. Instead, the alt text mostly just repeats the captions, which isn't what alt text is for (please see WP:ALT#Repetition). Please see WP:ALT#Maps for guidance on alt text for maps, and WP:ALT#Essence for advice in general. Eubulides (talk) 03:32, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hopefully the alt text is better now. I have expanded and rewriten much of the text. BT (talk) 04:53, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, it's better now. I improved it a bit further. Eubulides (talk) 02:24, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Oppose Support - Sorry, BT, think the prose needs a bit more work. I'm concerned that the article has only 10 sources, though the length doesn't really concern me as much. Perhaps you could search a bit more for sources? I'd understand if there wasn't.
I searched everything and I could not find anymore sources. I would think 10 sources would be ok for a minor series of earthquakes compared to earthquakes that have been felt, done damage and killed people. While I was reading through the article again, I fixed some the of written information. BT (talk) 01:29, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
My concerns have been addressed, but I'm still a bit wary of the length. I recognize it's a rather minor series, but even so that gives me notability concerns. Despite these concerns, I'm willing to post a weak support. ceranthor 16:45, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Amendment for delegates, changing to full support since Awickert has confirmed the content is good. ceranthor 20:48, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What is wrong with the length? It's not like every earthquake article has to be the same length in order to pass a FA candidate. The earthquake articles you brung to FA status are just a tad longer than this one (e.g.1968 Illinois earthquake, 1997 Qayen earthquake or 2002 Bou'in-Zahra earthquake). And this minor earthquake swarm is most likely notable enough if it was reported on TV news channels, it caused an excitement throughout BC, it is the only notable earthquake series away from the BC Coast and it brung attention to scientists. That seems pretty notable in my opinion. BT (talk) 22:47, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • It took place in the sparsely populated Nazko area of the central British Columbia Interior starting on Tuesday, October 9, 2007. - it? Wasn't it a series of earthquakes? Also, there's an inconsistency with the infobox with the date.
Yes. The reason I used "It" was because the earthquakes in general was an earthquake swarm. If you think about it as an earthquake swarm, it would be single. As for the infobox date, it is supposed to be for when the earthquake swarm began. BT (talk) 01:29, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The main shock epicenter - shock's epicenter
I deleted "shock" since the epicenter is really part of the swarm's hypocenter. While I was changing that I noticed another error; since it was a series of earthquakes, there would have been more than one epicenter. So I changed it from "epicenter" to "epicenters". BT (talk) 01:29, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Its cause is not clear, but the swarm originated from a magmatic source due to the existence of sporadic outbursts.[3] - due to the existence of sporadic outbursts?
Yes, meaning the outbursts of the earthquake swarm went off and on. BT (talk) 01:29, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Before the Nazko earthquake swarm began in 2007, the earthquake zone these earthquakes originated from did not necessarily exist.[6] - didn't they occur at the edge of the Anahim hotspot (according to the lead)?
The Anahim hotspot or Anahim Volcanic Belt was not known to be an earthquake zone before these earthquakes began. BT (talk) 01:29, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Seismologist John Cassidy said: "the depth is enough to rule out hydrothermal but it's up in the air as to whether the cause is tectonic shifts or volcanic activity. If it is volcanic there are certain characteristics that we would expect, there's a tremor-like character to it. And so we'll be looking for the types of events that we see beneath volcanoes and we'll be looking to see if they're getting closer to the surface of if they're migrating at all."[8] - he stated that...
True. BT (talk) 01:29, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ceranthor 22:32, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • The article looks overall pretty good. I can't find any issues with the science, just with wording and clarity. I'll be making some small edits to address these over the next few days, and if there's something large that I notice in the meantime, I'll post here again. Awickert (talk) 19:44, 30 January 2010 (UTC) Done. Awickert (talk) 05:50, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Conditional <add>Full</add> support pending resolution/explanation of below minor issues:

  • "It has been suggested" is passive voice. Please revise.
Fixed. BT (talk) 02:59, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • 400px is too wide for an image to have text flow around it per MOS.
Made the pic smaller to 350px. BT (talk) 02:59, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Scientific response section:"The earthquake swarm was notified on..." Shouldn't that be "noted" or is that a peculiarity of Canadian English?
I don't believe so. Changed it anyway. BT (talk) 02:59, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Preparedness and hazards section: "... have established seismographs in the area to determine future earthquakes in the area more clearly." Shouldn't "determine" be replaced with "monitor"?
Yes. BT (talk) 02:59, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Odd usage "living magma chambers". I've never heard that usage before.
Odd for sure. I changed it to "active magma chambers". BT (talk) 02:59, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

--mav (Urgent FACs/FARs) 00:29, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support the content Just finished going over it. The science looks good, and I fixed and clarified all the little things that seemed to want attention. I did some stylistic stuff too, but I'm not extremely familiar with the more intricate parts of WP:MOS, so it might want a new pair of eyes before it heads out to be a full-fledged FA. But content-wise it has thumbs-up from me. Awickert (talk) 05:50, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm afraid you misunderstood my addition to it would turn out to be a highly explosive eruption like those that occur at subduction volcanoes. Of course explosive eruptions can occur far from plate boundaries, but I added that because the volcanoes she mentioned (i.e. St. Helens and Pinatubo) are related to subduction volcanism and not hotspot volcanism like Nazko. Hotspot volcanoes are not normally highly explosive like those that occur at subduction zones; Yellowstone is only one of the few hotspot volcanoes that have highly explosive activity. BT (talk) 17:51, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry about that! Maybe it should be restored as, it would turn out to be a highly explosive eruption like those that can occur in subduction-zone volcanoes. (Non-explosive volcanism also occurs at subduction zones, and "subduction volcano" isn't used in the professional literature.) Awickert (talk) 17:57, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That's likely better. I understand not all eruptions at subduction zones are explosive and "subduction volcano" is not used in the professional literature. I used "subduction volcano" to be parallel with other usages in articles on Wikipedia, but most of those articles are not close to FA class, so it's clear the term "subduction volcano" should not be used. BT (talk) 19:09, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Not a problem - I knew what you were talking about, but as this is a FAC, I wanted to make it as professional as possible. I figured that you understood that about subd. zone volcanoes, but the sentence was ambiguous. By the way - thanks for writing the article! I had a blast reviewing because I'd never heard of the earthquakes before. Awickert (talk) 21:52, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
How is that file a derivative? It's not a direct copy if the file is not the same. Plus, the file is my work I took from the given source. My image and the other image on the given source are not the same. They have different graphics. BT (talk) 16:55, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's nearly identical to this image [2]. –Juliancolton | Talk 17:11, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ok are you saying my image is copyvio or should I just replace the current source with the one you cited. If it looks like copyvio then I will just replace that file with another one. BT (talk) 22:04, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Not necessarily. I'm saying you need to provide permission info for the original image. –Juliancolton | Talk 22:09, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm confused. There is info given for the original image in the file's source section and it provides the same website you gave. Apart from that, I'm the creator of File:2007-2008 Nazko swarm location.png. How is it not accurately licenced under Creative Commons if I'm the creator of this image? BT (talk) 22:57, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
File:2007-2008 Nazko swarm location.png is almost identical to the image from the original source. Correct? –Juliancolton | Talk 23:26, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. BT (talk) 12:55, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Just to get away from this problem, I switched the image to one of Nazko Cone. Your first statement was File:2007-2008 Nazko swarm location.png is apparently a derivative of an image with unclear permission. What's unclear about it? The original (and copyrighted) version is most likely a work of Natural Resources Canada. I have also changed my licence to Public Domain instead of Creative Commons. BT (talk) 18:03, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It is from Natural Resources Canada, and I found its orignal source. It is linked here (click on "map of the largest earthquakes"). This fig might also be useful, and in fact, I was very successful by Google image searching Nazko site:.ca. Awickert (talk) 19:19, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is that 1) "most likely" isn't good enough without evidence, and 2) we don't know what the copyright status is. That's what's unclear. –Juliancolton | Talk 20:47, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There is a similar map created by Natreal Resources Canada here on their website. But that appears to be an earlier map because less dots for the earthquakes are shown compared to the other version. But the maps themselves are the same. So the copyrighted version of File:2007-2008 Nazko swarm location.png is obviously an NRC work. This discussion would likely better on the candidate's talk page since this is a problem no longer part of the article. BT (talk) 22:52, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ahhhh.... see above? I'm telling the truth! I'll even give the image's URL! An identical almost-identical map (probably the original) (just different color scheme) is from Natural Resources Canada. There is no copyright issue. I'll even replace the image... (and if you missed the links given above, please note the other lined image of the progression of the hotspot). Awickert (talk) 01:30, 10 February 2010 (UTC) (updated 01:33, 10 February 2010 (UTC))[reply]
Actually, is Natural Resources Canada an OK source for images? I'm thinking maybe not, their copyright statement says no to commercial reproduction of multiple copies. Awickert (talk) 01:42, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I still don't see a problem. File:2007-2008 Nazko swarm location.png is not a copy of an NRC image. If it was, File:2007-2008 Nazko swarm location.png would be copyvio but it isn't because it is work created by a different person and they both have different graphics. The NRC is not taking over my work period. I am willing to recreate another image if I have a source..... BT (talk) 02:31, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oh - I think that I see - so you created your own fig with the same data? (Sorry about my confusion). I'm not sure where copyright would fall in terms of this, so apologies to all for my adding to the confusion. Awickert (talk) 05:57, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. I made another image using NRC data last night as File:2007-10-19 Nazko earthquakes.png for events on October 19, 2007. Where did you find this image? I will make my own work using this data to overwrite File:2007-2008 Nazko swarm location.png if I have to. BT (talk) 16:00, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Found it at NRC, with the link in my first post on this topic. Awickert (talk) 02:17, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I know, but where on the website? If I remake this image I will need the source where I got the image from. BT (talk) 03:49, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I thought that this would work? It is from Natural Resources Canada, and I found its orignal source. It is linked here (click on "map of the largest earthquakes"). Awickert (talk) 04:05, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It does work. I just don't know if I can just give a link to the image or I need a link to the NRC website as well. But I found the image just by searching "Nazko Quake Swarm" and it appears to be on the NRC Nazko Cone page here. BT (talk) 15:42, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, sorry, I was trying to copy my original comment but did it out of the edit window (and therefore without the link). Should have said: It is linked here (click on "map of the largest earthquakes"), Awickert (talk) 17:52, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/2007–2008_Nazko_earthquakes/archive1&oldid=1091467851"