Wikipedia:Peer review/1920 Xalapa earthquake/archive2

1920 Xalapa earthquake

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

I've listed this article for peer review because I want to nominate this article for FA review. Since the last PR, I've incorporated more information from the Spanish-language sources and reworked parts of the article. Article is quite content-heavy and the first time I've dedicated that much effort in making the best use of available sources and organising them. Yet this is my first time so I'm looking for guidance.

I'm looking for reviewers who can guide me in organising/polishing the content to FA standards. And addressing all other issues that are holding back this article.

Thanks, Dora the Axe-plorer (explore) 16:22, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Volcanoguy @Jo-Jo Eumerus, both of you have experience in FA geology topics. I plan to make this FAC which would be my first time. Are you able to dedicate some time for this PR? @Ceranthor, Hi this article has gone through significant changes since your last PR especially with new information from the original 1922 report. Could you revisit this PR again for your take? Dora the Axe-plorer (explore) 05:57, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, I don't have much experience in bringing earthquake articles to FA so I'm not sure what this article would need. The only earthquake article I brought to FA was 2007–2008 Nazko earthquakes in 2010 and I haven't worked on any earthquake articles in years. Volcanoguy 14:50, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Images are missing alt texts. Volcanoguy 15:08, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'll comment on a few things. "Major towns including Xalapa, Teocelo, and Cosautlán experienced fewer casualties compared to the rural mountainous area but suffered more collapsed buildings." I dunno if I would say that a town "suffered" from collapsed buildings. Why does this article use US dollars as its currency? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:43, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Mexican peso symbol is $ and that's what the sources used Dora the Axe-plorer (explore) 17:14, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There's a problem with Mexican peso in Template:$ initially raised in 2019 and nobody has fixed it. I can only manually add MX$ as a temporary fix unless the elephant in the room gets addressed Dora the Axe-plorer (explore) 17:34, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps WP:VPT can help? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:54, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Okay the Mexican peso article states "N$" is the new peso introduced in 1993. But I created a thread on VP to clarify. Dora the Axe-plorer (explore) 11:51, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Any further comments @Jo-Jo Eumerus? Dora the Axe-plorer (explore) 12:51, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe Mikenorton can provide some feedback. Volcanoguy 16:41, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"An area around the epicenter, located between Chilchotla and Patlanalán, was assigned the maximum intensity" odd formulation, an area doesn't have an intensity.
"the slab gradually plunge to about" I think that's "plunges"
"with later estimates of 700 to 4,000 also presented." a bit wordy.
I kinda wonder if there is something special about these mudslides. Earthquake-caused landslides are common; did the earthquake happen during rainy season and thus produced so many deadly mudslides?
"Sections of walls and a tower in the town's church felled" is felled the right word here?
"Cándido Aguilar resumed his position" did he quit it before?

Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:19, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'll have to revisit the 1922 report for the landslides part Dora the Axe-plorer (explore) 02:12, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Jo-Jo Eumerus None of the sources went beyond describing the landslides to explain why they happened aside from seismic shaking. One line from the 1922 report briefly mentioned the region's topography facilitating them. Dora the Axe-plorer (explore) 03:47, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Jo-Jo Eumerus while Mike works on the Tectonic setting, are there any more prose issues for the other sections? Dora the Axe-plorer (explore) 09:23, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Didn't notice anything else but prose is not my strength. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 12:13, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A few comments about the diagram in the "Tectonic setting" section, I've not really had a chance to look in any more detail at the rest of the article as yet, as I got hooked up on this.

"Cross-diagram" should be " Cross-section diagram" (strictly "vertical cross-section diagram", but I don't think we need to be that picky). The caption should also describe the whole diagram, so
- The inset map is not explained in the article or in the cited source. It's obviously a contoured depth map of the top of the subducting Cocos Plate slab, but there's nothing in the source to say that's the case. However, after some digging around I discovered that the diagram (including the map) was produced by Gavin Hayes, who is a senior advisor to the USGS, on the day of the 2019 earthquake. He is also a coauthor of "Slab 2", a 2018 published global model of subducting slabs, from which this appears to be an extract (see File:Global subducted slabs USGS.png). The focal mechanism shown on the cross-section line on the map is also from the 2019 earthquake, so that should be pointed out I think, at least in the image description on Commons.

I'll try to find time to look at the article more thoroughly, particularly the rest of the "Tectonic setting" section. Mikenorton (talk) 15:31, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Mikenorton I will close this review and submut to FAC by this weekend. Do you have further comments to make? Dora the Axe-plorer (explore) 10:33, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing in particular, but I've spent quite a bit of time trying to properly understand the tectonic setting, so hopefully that will be useful during the FAC process. Mikenorton (talk) 17:31, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Mikenorton I'm worried about the diagram not being helpful or too complex for casual readers as I intend for it to be a visualisation of flat-slab. Those who has some background in reading earthquakes/geology probably won't have trouble with it. As I try to put my shoes in those of a casual reader maybe it's not a good image. Dora the Axe-plorer (explore) 02:27, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Dora the Axe-plorer: I think that the diagram is generally useful, but in some ways is too specific as it stands. I would be happy to draw a diagram, based on this one, while removing some of the specifics, such as the location of the 2017 earthquake and the focal mechanism on the map and all the greyed out stuff, to demonstrate the overall structure of the slab. The line of section comes quite close to the 1920 earthquake epicentre. I'll start working on that as soon as I get a chance. Mikenorton (talk) 19:38, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]