Wikipedia:Peer review/2005 Qeshm earthquake/archive1

2005 Qeshm earthquake

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

A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for February 2009.

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I'd like to bring it to FA status, and it needs more feedback first.

Thanks, Ceran^→//forge 19:12, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Finetooth comments: This is perhaps a start-class article. I see many problems with the prose and with Manual of Style issues. The topic is interesting, and I'd like to know more. Here are a few ideas for expansion and quite a few specific suggestions about prose and style issues.

Ideas for expansion"

A more detailed description of the geography and geology of the immediate region
A detailed map of the region that shows the island in relation to the coast and nearby towns
More detail about the politics of aid packages vis-a-vis Iran
More detail about historic earthquake frequency, strength, and damages in Iran

Lead

"November 27, 2005" - Add comma after 2005.
"1500 km (900 miles)" - Spell out the primary unit and abbreviate the secondary unit. The convert template is handy for doing this automatically. See Template:Convert.
"6.0 on the Moment magnitude scale" - Lowercase "moment".
"Foreign nations were extremely responsive; however, for the most part, Iran declined relief help, stating that they had it under control." - This is undeveloped in the main text, which mentions only the UNICEF offer of assistance.
"had it under control" - Slang. Suggestion: "UNICEF offered relief help, which Iran declined on grounds that no outside assistance was needed."
"Since thirteen is a rather minor amount of casualties, especially for Iran, where deadly earthquakes are common; Iranian aid workers were able to supply the survivors with enough supplies." - The idea that 13 is "a rather minor amount of casualties, especially for Iran" is a judgment unsupported by the main text or a reliable source.
Done. Ceran^→//forge 13:52, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Background

"The epicenter was positioned offshore in the Persian Gulf, but nearby Qeshm Island." - Suggestion: "The epicenter lay offshore in the Persian Gulf near Qeshm Island." Also, the lead says, "close to the Persian Gulf", and this sentence says "offshore". It can't be both.
"meaning that they would be close to the surface to cause the damage that is typically attributed to them" - "are" rather than "would be". Also, I see no logical connection between "close to the surface" and "to cause the damage that is typically attributed to them". Are surface quakes more damaging than deep quakes? If so, this should be explained and sourced.

Yes... I'd consider that kind of obvious (no offense) :) And I'll look for a source.

"Despite that the earthquake was not extremely destructive" - "Although the earthquake"

"Despite that the earthquake was not extremely destructive, if it had occurred during the morning while people were asleep, instead of mid-afternoon (1:53 P.M.),[3] it could have been far more deadly. Housing in the epicentral area consisted mainly of mud and brick homes,[1] which would have contributed to a high death toll if this temblor had occurred at an earlier time." - This interpretation and extrapolation needs a source. Might it not be said about any earthquake that if it had occurred at a different time, the damage would have been different?

Damage and casualties'

"In Zirang, a nearby village" - Is this village on another island, on Qeshm, or on the mainland?
"Mercalli scale Intensity III damage" - It would be good to include that Intensity III damage is "slight" and that Intensity IV is "moderate". It would probably be a good idea to briefly explain the Mercalli scale.
"No damage occurred in the epicenter" - "at the epicenter"
"Subsequently, a landslide causing further damage followed" - Since you say "followed", you can delete "subsequently".
"the Richter scale" - In the lead, you use the moment magnitude scale and here the Richter scale. It would be good to explain their relationship and perhaps to give the magnitudes in both scales or to choose one scale over the other so that readers can easily compare the numbers.
"In one school, broken legs were reported when the building collapsed, but no casualties occurred." - Broken legs are casualties. Perhaps you mean "no fatalities".
Done. Ceran^→//forge 13:52, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I hope these suggestions prove helpful. Finetooth (talk) 19:24, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I just did a bit of copyediting. The article looks good as a whole, but I'd like to see some more impact information. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 16:52, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Further Finetooth comments: The article is getting better. I have two additional suggestions:

The lead mentions a shortage of tents, but this does idea does not appear elsewhere in the text. The lead should summarize the main text and should not include material that is not in the main text. You could add the tent shortage to the "Relief efforts" section.
It seems odd to say that "earthquakes of this type are not considered destructive" when the quake killed 13 people and injured another 100. Clarification is needed. Finetooth (talk) 01:50, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]