Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/1949 Ambato earthquake/archive1

< Wikipedia:Featured article candidates
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 Laser brain 03:06, 6 December 2010 [1].

1949 Ambato earthquake

edit

1949 Ambato earthquake (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Toolbox
Nominator(s): ceranthor 12:35, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because I feel it is a comprehensive, well-written account of this relatively unknown earthquake. I wanted to do some work on less well-known disasters, and then I found this compelling story. It's brief, but I think it's about the best it can get. Aside from one reference (Source 19 is being sorted out, still.), I'm pretty confident this is ready. ceranthor 12:35, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • The initial map should have a key or an appropriate caption, what do the colours mean? What does the line mean? What is the funny target thing? What is the scale on the map? The photographs need to have a link to a source page that states what they are images of and what the licensing of the images is Fasach Nua (talk) 13:11, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Added a caption to the first image. Why do the photographs need to have links to source pages? That's what the file pages are for. ceranthor 13:20, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
File:Ambato_Earthquake_-_Pelileo_Ruins.jpg is a photo of descilate houses, this could be Russia, Palestine or indeed Pelileo and the only way we know is the caption on the image, which fails WP:V. As a rule of thumb USGS images are free from copyright, but I am unable to tell if this images is one of the exceptions.
The line I was most concerned about was the one that may be the border of Equador, or is it a province of Equador, or maybe Grand Colombia Fasach Nua (talk) 13:29, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've added the fully detailed sources for the two damage pictures, in addition to the actual sources, but the other two are already sourced. The USGS Map links to the original page, and the Ecuador map is self-made. Thanks for your comments. ceranthor 13:53, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've added labels to the location map and simplified the caption, I could also label Peru and Colombia if that would help clarify things. I added the extra labels, looks better to me. Mikenorton (talk) 18:19, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Perfect WP:FA Criteria 3 met in full Fasach Nua (talk) 21:13, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. ceranthor 22:20, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Source comments – Did some spot-checks and found the following:

  • First, a couple of formatting issues. The last four reference are all missing publishers.
  • If the spaced en dash in reference 4 is meant to be a page range, then it should probably be unspaced.
  • "The nearby villages of Guano and Patate were destroyed, and the cities of Ambato, Pelileo, and Pillaro also suffered heavy damage." The source (reference 1) says that Pelileo and Pillaro were destroyed as well, and the body says the same thing. Why is the lead different?
  • From the same source, I'm not too wild about seeing the phrase "completely destroyed" appear both there and in the article. I don't think this is enough to be seriously troubling, but with what's been going on lately it would probably be best to avoid any such issues by rewording.
  • I don't see where "Some 30 communites had been severely affected by the earthquake and approximately 100,000 people were homeless" is backed by this source (still ref 1). In fact, it doesn't say anything of the sort.
  • There is a distinct similarlity between the article and this source in one place. Article: "and C-47 aircraft from the United States brought medical supplies and a Red Cross team." Source: "U.S. C-47s flew in medical supplies and a Red Cross team." Structure looks almost the same, even though some of the wording doesn't.
  • "Fourteen other towns and cities were also badly affected, including Guano, which was completely destroyed." The source given actually lists 15 other towns/cities. It also says that Salcedo was reportedly destroyed; don't know how much credence to give this, though. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 01:31, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • One more thing: the bibliography gives the book author's last name as St. Louis, while the shortened footnote takes out the St. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 01:33, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Should all be resolved. Could you look at the closely phrased one? I'm afraid I didn't re-word it enough. ceranthor 00:36, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Took a shot at rephrasing it further. The prose may need a second look, but it should be unique enough to avoid trouble in that regard. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 01:32, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

DAB/EL Check - no dabs, no external link problems. --PresN 20:02, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you both very much for your input! ceranthor 21:03, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support - concerns have been adequately addressed. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:34, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! ceranthor 02:28, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Nikkimaria (talk) 04:26, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • "southeast of its capital, Ambato and caused the deaths of 5,050 people" - either remove the comma or add one after Ambato. Also, why not simply "killed"?
  • I realize that "Background" is supposed to be general, but...the first and third paragraphs seem quite vague, and need editing for flow and tone. You might consider splitting the information in Geology between Background and...a section describing the actual quake, which would be an amalgam of the last paragraph of Geology and the first few sentences of Damage and casualties (or just broaden Damage and casualties to a section describing the quake as a whole)
Not sure which suggestion you want me to implement. I think the small paragraph is better suited in the geology section as is; I don't like the thought of combining sections, it seems kind of disorganized to me.
Either suggestion would be an acceptable solution, or you could develop your own solution, but the current setup seems awkward to me. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:09, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I actually changed it during the GA review. Is the current setup now better? ceranthor 19:37, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Should be fixed.
  • By "communions", I assume you mean First Communions?
  • It would be helpful to show the other towns mentioned on the map. Where is Libertad relative to Ambato, for example?
I honestly don't know their exact locations. I mentioned that Libertad was close to Pelileo, but that's about the best I can do.
  • "No homes in the city" - Pelileo or Ambato?
  • Need some general wording and phrasing changes to improve clarity and flow
Examples (not an exhaustive list):
  • "Earthquakes in Ecuador stem from two major interrelated tectonic areas, the subduction of the Nazca Plate under the South American Plate, and the Andean Volcanic Belt" - subduction is a process, subduction zone is an area. Also, punctuation needs to be changed slightly
  • "probably stems from a region of northeast-trending faulting near the Ecuadorian Trench, which may function as an independent microplate" - the faulting region or the Trench is a microplate?
  • "The Carnegie Ridge is being subducted under Ecuadorian land which causes coastal uplift and volcanism" Nikkimaria (talk) 20:09, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed the examples.
  • Numbers under 10 should be spelled out
  • Ref formatting should be more consistent - for example, compare current refs 10 and 11, or 18 and 19, or general date formatting.
10 and 11 are different. One has a publisher. There is no difference in formatting there.
Both of them list an individual as a publisher using different formatting (incidentally, those individuals weren't the publishers at the time the articles cited were published). There are formatting inconsistencies with other references. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:09, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, fixed 10 and 11.
Most of these have been sorted out by GrahamColm - thanks Graham! I'll fix any that haven't. ceranthor 20:14, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Further comments on review talk to save space here. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:39, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support ResMar. I also made some wording revisions, for clarity and flow for the most part. Well written if short. Two (one?) minor point(s):

Lead
  • The 1949 Ambato earthquake was the largest earthquake in the Western Hemisphere in a over a decade. I made a few wording changes - specifically adding "earthquake" and "over a decade". Do verify that that's right, though. Particularly the "over a decade" - it sounds better in the sentence, when was the previous earthquake of its power?
  • I wikilinked Libertad to encourage article development.

Nice work. ResMar 03:00, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! As to the earthquake before it, Life doesn't mention it, but it was probably the 1939 Chillán earthquake. ceranthor 03:26, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Then it is indeed just over a decade. ResMar 17:50, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A few Comments/Questions after just passing through:

  • The order of SI/English units are used inconsistently e.g. lead: 40 km (25 mi) ... and then in the geology section 25 miles (40 km)
Fixed.
  • Is it typical to label the epicenter on the map for earthquake articles? The city name looks closer to the epicenter than the word epicenter to me. An arrow? Is it even needed?
Fasach Nua asked for labels, and I'm not capable of changing Mikenorton's work.
Actually, the epicenter is not normally labelled as such, but it sometimes is. My view is that it is to some extent self-explanatory. However, if needed I could put the label closer to the bullseye, it just requires a bit of trial and error. I think that I could also change its colour and/or put it in italics if that would look better. Mikenorton (talk) 19:58, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't really clear with my thoughts here. I agree with Mikenorton that it is self-explanatory that the bullseye of the target-looking mark is the epicenter – it seems to be a familiar symbol to me (and I'm no earthquake expert). In my opinion, I would take out the word and indicate in the caption (for clarity for those who don't know the target) that the center of the target is the epicenter. Strafpeloton2 (talk) 05:27, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Should be resolved, then.
I like it. Strafpeloton2 (talk) 18:37, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • A bit of passive voice. I'm not sure if this is an issue at FAC or not. Either way, some examples:
    • "Entire buildings were flattened..."
    • "the entire country is threatened..."
    • "The earthquake's impact on affected cities was considerable"
    • "...shaking up to intensity IV was felt"
Fixing.
I'll look more at the article to see if there are other cases, but it is already much better. Strafpeloton2 (talk) 05:27, 26 November 2010 (UTC) Looks good now. Strafpeloton2 (talk) 18:37, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "2007 Peru-Ecuador" needs an n-dash I think
Added.
  • I'd like to see citations for this sentence and many of the other sentences in this paragraph: "Initial reports estimated the death toll at 2,700 people." Who reported that?
Various sources did. The source I took it from just happens to be the Sarasota Herald-Tribune, but making a list of all the newspapers who made the initial report of 2,700 would be far too long. I'll add citations. Update: Fixed.
  • This sentence needs some citations too because of the direct quotes: "The city of Ambato was a "scene of anguish and pain" best described by the "scores of little funerals winding their way through the debris""
Cited.
Not really sure. I guess it was better for them that way? I'll see if I find anything.
Found it; Ambato's fruits are in bloom best in February. Do you think this should be added to the article?
It is interesting. You could simply throw it in the sentence like this "...in February when the fruit is in season..." if you wanted.
I added it in as a footnote.
Looks good. 18:37, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
Resolved some of your points, and I am in the process of fixing the rest. ceranthor 13:49, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm happy now. It was an interesting read. I support with regard to FA criterion 1a, at least as well as I understand it. Just out of curiosity, does that huge hole in the ground still exist? Strafpeloton2 (talk) 18:37, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I have no idea, but I could imagine it just might. ceranthor 18:53, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much, for your help and your support. ceranthor 18:25, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Malleus. ceranthor 02:49, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Near the Nazca subduction zone, the recorded history of interplate earthquakes (of varying size) spans 80 years - do we need the parentheses here? Reads okay without them to me...?
I'd link or explain seismicity, and I'd try to reword the second occurrence of it.
is being subducted under Ecuadorian land - why not just "is sliding under Ecuadorian land"? Do we lose any meaning that way?
It is now celebrated in February because that is when Ambato's fruits are the most ripe - hmmm, I think the gist of it is: " It is now celebrated in February because that is when most of Ambato's fruits are ripe" - reword?

Otherwise looking pretty good. Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:57, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Should all be fixed. ceranthor 20:35, 3 December 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.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/1949_Ambato_earthquake/archive1&oldid=1091467874"