Talk:1958 Firuzabad earthquake/GA1

GA Review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Nominator: Dora the Axe-plorer (talk · contribs) 02:17, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

Reviewer: AirshipJungleman29 (talk · contribs) 19:50, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

I'll take this review, as part of the WikiCup and ongoing GA backlog drive; please consider participating in the latter especially. Review to follow shortly. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 19:50, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it well written?

   A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:

   B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:

2. Is it verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check?

   A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:

   B. Reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose):

   C. It contains no original research:

   D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

   B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):

4. Is it neutral?

   It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:

5. Is it stable?

   It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:

6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

Comments

• If the first sentence talks about the "second earthquake in nine months", it should mention "following [the first earthquake]" or similar.

RewordedDora the Axe-plorer (explore) 21:38, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

• The lead could be expanded to summarise the "Tectonic setting" subsection and more details from the "Earthquake" section.

I've added some content about the geological aspects Dora the Axe-plorer (explore) 22:23, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

• The image depicting the main recent fault has small writing on it, so could do with being expanded.

I've expanded to 350pxDora the Axe-plorer (explore) 21:38, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

• I have concerns that nearly all the description of the earthquake itself comes from the same source. Are there no other sources that describe the earthquake in detail? The reliance on one source has created some issues, such as:
  • "These foreshocks had their own sequences of aftershocks" is not verified by the text, which puts them all in the category of "foreshock to the main shock".

reworded to match sourceDora the Axe-plorer (explore) 21:38, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

• • "and some were damaging" is unneeded, as damage is already discussed multiple times.

okDora the Axe-plorer (explore) 21:38, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

• • The paragraph about the aftershocks drawns not just from p.16 but also from p.18

Woops, thanks for spotting thatDora the Axe-plorer (explore) 21:38, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

• • The first paragraph of "Damage and casualties" is sourced just to p.6.

DoneDora the Axe-plorer (explore) 21:38, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

• Why are the aftershocks not discussed after the main earthquake?

Transferred to new headerDora the Axe-plorer (explore) 21:38, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

• Ping me once you are done addressing these issues; I will do a copyedit.

Hi @AirshipJungleman29:, I've addressed your pointers, let me know if there are more things to work on.Dora the Axe-plorer (explore) 22:25, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

Spotcheck

• Because I am unfamiliar with seismological terminology, could you quote the parts of source 5 (Rahimzadeh et al.) which verify the second paragraph of "Tectonic setting"
• The Main Recent Fault delineates the northeastern boundary of the seismically active Zagros Mountains, forming about 5 million years ago. It runs parallel to the Main Zagros Reverse Fault, ...
  • "onset of MRF activity is probably associated with 3-5 Ma ago"
  • "MRF is a major, seismically active, right‐lateral, and strike slip fault with a NW–SE trend that generally follows the trace of the Main Zagros Reverse Fault"
  • "This fault borders the NE edge of the Zagros"
  • "... intense seismicity of the Zagros ..."
• a suture zone separating the metamorphic rocks of the Sanandaj-Sirjan Zone from the fold and thrust belt.
  • "The Main Zagros Reverse Fault is the suture line that has been identified by the exposed ophiolites and deep-marine sedimentary rocks in the Zagros orogen and divides the metamorphosed hinterland (Sanandaj-Sirjan zone) from the Zagros fold-andthrust belt"
• The fault comprises several segments with lengths of more than 100 km (62 mi).
  • "The MRF consists of several over 100 km-long en echelon segments"
• Southwest of the Main Recent Fault lies the continental margin of Arabia while the rocks to the northeast are of metamorphic and volcanic origin
  • "The MRF approximately separates the rocks of the Arabian continental margin, in the southwest, from metamorphic and volcanic rocks of central Iran, in the northeast"
• Its southeastern segments ends in a zone of north–northwest trending strike-slip faults that offset the series of mountainous features.
  • "Further to the SE, the MRF is terminated at a series of NNNW trending, dextral strike-slip faults disrupting the structures of the Zagros fold and thrust belt"
• southeastern segments are more seismically active in contrast to the northwestern segments
  • "Seismic activity is greater along the SE segments than the NW segments of the MRF"

These are the quotes. Dora the Axe-plorer (explore) 22:11, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

Alright, that seems fine, as do the cites to the in-depth source mentioned above. All good here. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 23:02, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.