Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/1920 Xalapa earthquake/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

1920 Xalapa earthquake

[edit]

1920 Xalapa earthquake (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

As of 22 December 2024, 09:57 (UTC), this page is active and open for discussion. An FAC coordinator will be responsible for closing the nomination.
Toolbox
Nominator(s): Dora the Axe-plorer (explore) 14:48, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a deadly and destructive earthquake in Mexico, known for its devastating mudslides which contributed to the losses. It had an estimated magnitude of 6.3 to 6.4 and occurred within the Trans-Mexican Volcanic Belt, a region experiencing extensional tectonics, where normal faults produce seismic activity. This event may have been due to shallow normal faulting, the kind of faulting observed in other earthquakes along the belt. Dora the Axe-plorer (explore) 14:48, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • Don't use fixed px size
  • File:Templo_de_Teocelo,_Veracruz,_terremoto_1920.png: what is the author's date of death? Ditto File:Earthquake_Isoseismal_map_terremoto_1920_Xalapa_pdf.pdf, File:Saltillo_Lafragua_church,_terremoto_1920.png, File:Landslide_scars_on_Cerro_Colorado_in_Patlanalá,_Puebla.png, File:Enríquez_Street,_Xalapa,_terremoto_1920.png, File:Cosautlán,_Veracruz_1920_terremoto.png. Nikkimaria (talk) 05:25, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note the original publication does not identify the authors in the front pages so I attributed to Instituto Geológico de México, 1922. They are in the public domain according to Alamy although the uploaded files are screenshots of the report. At least one of the authors I found via secondary source is Teodoro Flores d. 1955. The other may have been Horacio Camacho, d 2015.
Alamy entries:
Dora the Axe-plorer (explore) 06:04, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
They are in the public domain in which country according to Alamy?
They are currently tagged as life+70 - if the likely authors died in 1955 and 2015, that tag wouldn't apply yet. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:20, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That I'm unable to decipher, I'm checking with Alamy over the matter. Dora the Axe-plorer (explore) 00:41, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There are seven other works uploaded by Panorami bot in 2010 and 2016 from the 1922 source under CC-BY-SA-3.0. More are found under this cat Dora the Axe-plorer (explore) 01:02, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Nikkimaria have you concluded scrutinization? Dora the Axe-plorer (explore) 11:13, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You had indicated you were checking with Alamy - did you hear back? Nikkimaria (talk) 01:48, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
They don't have any further information about the PD country. Past alamy works on Commons use the CC BY-SA 4.0 Int'l license. Anyways I'll just remove those images until it gets sorted out Dora the Axe-plorer (explore) 02:04, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Ganesha811

[edit]
  • Noting that I intend to review this and should have comments up in the next couple days. —Ganesha811 (talk) 23:31, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not a full source review, but the vast majority of the sources appear to be reliable government reports or academic papers. Not seeing any red flags. The Catholic Telegraph and San Diego Union are both fine as generally reliable historic newspapers. I would recommend adding links to their articles in the citations. It's also usually worth checking if any of the academics have Wikipedia articles and linking those, they sometimes do.
Lead
[edit]
  • Why does the lead use moment magnitude instead of Richter? Is that now standard for seismology?
Moment magnitude has been the standard for earthquakes larger than magnitude 6.0 since its introduction. None of these sources provide a Richter magnitude estimate either.Dora the Axe-plorer (explore) 01:08, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough!
  • I'd say some of the geology can be moved out of the first paragraph and shifted to the second, while some of the human impact can be moved up higher in the lead.
doneDora the Axe-plorer (explore) 01:08, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some prose oddities in the lead:
  • past seismic-hazard zoning projects have classified - past as of 1920 or past as of today? Should it be "had" instead?
  • normal faulting which may have been identical to the one involved in 1920. The one what? A fault? Which fault? Not sure what this sentence is trying to say.
Clarified Dora the Axe-plorer (explore) 01:08, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • accommodated by what does this mean, exactly?
Hopefully the wording is better, I've omitted the wordDora the Axe-plorer (explore) 01:08, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Any reason the cost of damage is given in US dollars rather than pesos?
US dollar comes from the Catholic Telegraph reflected in the bodyDora the Axe-plorer (explore) 01:08, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Meanwhile, the newspapers which newspapers? All newspapers? Seems a broad statement.
ClarifiedDora the Axe-plorer (explore) 01:08, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • more than N$300,000 N$ appears to be the usual symbol for the Namibian dollar, not the peso - why is it used here? Does the 300,000 include the previous mentioned 20,000?
N$ is the symbol of the new peso introduced in 1993 which the template appears to follow. N reflects the ISO 4217 code for new peso when MXN is injected into the template. A number of editors have been confused with the template output so I will manually key in Mex$ which they should be familiar with. The 300,000 and 20,000 come from separate sources that don't acknowledge each other so I don't know.Dora the Axe-plorer (explore) 01:26, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Follow-up, 20,000 has been omitted, it's a minor detail so that shouldn't be a problem Dora the Axe-plorer (explore) 01:27, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Seems reasonable.
  • were raised should be "was raised".
DoneDora the Axe-plorer (explore) 01:08, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Could you move/split up your reply to the locations of the relevant comments and note which prose issues have been addressed? Thanks! —Ganesha811 (talk) 16:28, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, that's very helpful. Continuing on with the review later today! —Ganesha811 (talk) 13:31, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • a 2017 research remove "a" or add a following word like "study" or "project"
  • assigned in the epicenter assigned to, not assigned in
  • the mainshock originated within the Earth's crust where else would an earthquake originate?
  • established communication services this fact doesn't appear to be mentioned later on in the article. What is it summarizing?
  • through joining - recommend switching this to , joining for readability.
  • The El Salvador and Honduras - recommend modifying to the Salvadoran and Honduran governments, as well as Pope Benedict XV and adding wikilinks to all 3.
Six points above this comment done. Some parts of the lede were modified following Mike's earlier comments.Dora the Axe-plorer (explore) 11:54, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Tectonic setting
[edit]
  • If I'm reading the map correctly, the Middle America Trench is southwest of Mexico. How can the two Pacific, oceanic plates subduct "northwestwards" - wouldn't it be northeast?
That's my typo. Dora the Axe-plorer (explore) 14:09, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • (slabs), dehydrate no comma needed
Fixed Dora the Axe-plorer (explore) 14:09, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • subducts at 50 50 degrees from what baseline? How is this measured?
Earth's surface. Imaging the slab geometry requires seismic tomography and studying earthquakes within the slab to project a 3D image, which isn't relevant anymore if that's what you're asking. Dora the Axe-plorer (explore) 14:09, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Could you rephrase these sentences (and the one mentioned below) to make that clearer? Thanks. —Ganesha811 (talk) 16:52, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Is it better now? Dora the Axe-plorer (explore) 00:04, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that's more comprehensible, thanks. —Ganesha811 (talk) 00:41, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • plunges to about 50-60 this is now as compared to the angle of the earth's surface, or something else?
above answered. Dora the Axe-plorer (explore) 14:09, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Intraslab earthquakes within the Cocos plate occur at 60–100 km (37–62 mi) depth, but cease abruptly some 100 km (62 mi) south of the TMVB, possibly because the slab does not produce earthquakes in the north before plunging steeply to 120 km (75 mi) depth beneath the TMVB. I'm not sure what this sentence is trying to say. How does the second part relate to the first and what is the implication of either?
OmittedDora the Axe-plorer (explore) 12:07, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • cease should be "ceases"
Fixed. Dora the Axe-plorer (explore) 14:09, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Am I reading correctly that it is impossible for an inactive fault to generate earthquakes?
An active fault is one that moves and could generate earthquake. Inactive faults don't move presently hence don't produce earthquakes. You're correct. Dora the Axe-plorer (explore) 14:09, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's the line of section, I've added a text to indicate this. Because the crust the volcanic belt rest atop has to move apart, arrows would indicate that movement.Dora the Axe-plorer (explore) 14:09, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
FYI Ceranthor made new suggestions at PR 2 which I've tried to address. @Ceranthor use this space if you have to comment. Thanks for going through the article. Dora the Axe-plorer (explore) 14:53, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But those volcanoes and faults on the diagram are purely hypothetical, and not intended to represent actual faults/mountains, right? So couldn't the line of section equally be anywhere along the TMVB from coast to coast? FWIW I agree with Ceranthor's grammar and other comments and will not duplicate them. —Ganesha811 (talk) 17:37, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hypothetically it could look like this all along the volcanic belt. There isn't enough research on every part of the belt to give an accurate picture of how the faults actually look like, it's currently a blank canvas with no right or wrong, Dora the Axe-plorer (explore) 12:06, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Damage and casualties
[edit]
  • The earthquake killed 648 people why favor the source that says this over the other sources with widely varying estimates?
Reworded to "between 648 and 4,000", is that better? Dora the Axe-plorer (explore) 06:50, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, though I recommend also adding a phrase or a sentence explaining the widely varying estimates (i.e. which are contemporary vs modern reviews). —Ganesha811 (talk) 15:22, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'll see what I can do, currently on a 14 hr flight to SFO so i'll try with the slow onboard wifi Dora the Axe-plorer (explore) 15:30, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, running through the sources, most of them don't address the varying numbers but I've added a line about the origin of the lowest figure from the 1922 report while contemporary refs give higher numbers. Another line acknowledging the lack of clarification regarding this discrepancy. I think acknowledging we can't explain because there's no discussion about it should make up for it. Dora the Axe-plorer (explore) 15:54, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • earthquake in Mexico - change to "in Mexico's history"
Done
  • building constructed should be "buildings constructed from" - also, attributed by who?
Reworded
  • XI isoseismal band - might be more readable to just say "in the area of the most intense damage" or "in the area of the severest shaking"
  • The section discussion landslides first covers many separate landslides, but then seems to describe one massive landslide in particular along the Huitzilapa. Could you rephrase to make the sequence of events clearer?
Reworded, hopefully it's better. Dora the Axe-plorer (explore) 06:50, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • there were only two residents survivors should be "only two residents survived." The second part of the sentence is not needed, seems obvious.
Done
  • The section switches between using US dollars and pesos. Should be consistent throughout the article, preferably in pesos (with modern equivalents given).
I've adjusted all currencies to eflect the US dollar as of 1922, which is the earliest reliable conversion I could find from the fed reserve. Should the adjusted figures and ref for conversion stay in prose or do I leave it in a footnote? I have it in the prose just for now. Dora the Axe-plorer (explore) 06:50, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's fine to keep it in the prose. —Ganesha811 (talk) 15:22, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Noting that some comments in the sections above have not yet been addressed.
Response
[edit]
  • resumed his position why was he not in office at the time of the quake? Would be good to have some context.
  • refuge should be "refugee", I think
  • requested for donations can just be "requested donations"
  • Veracruz, coordinated should probably be ", also coordinated", unless he was the one coordinating the government relief also.
  • The sentences about the newspapers' efforts can be moved so they don't split up the sentences about Guizar y Valencia's efforts.
  • Any details available on the type of assistance that the USA or Germany provided?
Pts 2, 3 & 4 done. The current source doesn't elaborate pts 1 and 6. If I can find something about them, I'll add them Dora the Axe-plorer (explore) 17:13, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Ganesha811 I couldn't find anything about Aguilar's temporary departure from the position, so my guess was this is a very minor point. Perhaps ommitting it could be justified? Deschamps also isn't involved in the response. Dora the Axe-plorer (explore) 18:52, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Ganesha811 will you continue the review? Dora the Axe-plorer (explore) 22:12, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, there are a number of points above you haven't yet responded to (including under 'Lead'). Please mark them off as you go or reply with a comment, thanks! —Ganesha811 (talk) 22:15, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please check again I don't think I missed any as of comment Dora the Axe-plorer (explore) 12:09, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Ganesha811 all your points have been addressed. Please continue. Dora the Axe-plorer (explore) 20:30, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I will take another look, thanks. —Ganesha811 (talk) 21:38, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Further comments
[edit]
  • wooden jacales generally performed well this detail, while interesting, can probably be removed from the lead and kept only in the body.
DoneDora the Axe-plorer (explore) 22:59, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • 2008 hazard zoning...risk is higher this phrase can also be removed from the lead to keep the focus on the 1920 quake
DoneDora the Axe-plorer (explore) 22:59, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mexico is one of the world's...Venta de Bravo faults and Chapala graben This whole paragraph (with the exception of the first sentence) feels like it could be removed or reworked. Perhaps some of the information can be brought to the start of the section (or Tectonic Setting) to provide broad context, but we don't need too much here.
Reworded and moved to tectonic setting. I added further details initially concerned the original description was vague.Dora the Axe-plorer (explore) 22:59, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The landslide began this paragraph still reads a little confusingly - are we talking about one landslide? Two (Huitzilapa and Patlanalá)? Many? Please rework a little more to clarify the number of distinct events and make the sequence clearer.
Reworded. Hopefully it's clear to you there were multiple small landslides along the Huitzilapa and its tributaries that later combined into a single mass that traveled further downstream and swept away these villages.Dora the Axe-plorer (explore) 19:42, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Ganesha811 All points have been addressed Dora the Axe-plorer (explore) 23:00, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Ganesha811 follow up, please Dora the Axe-plorer (explore) 22:53, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'll take a look tomorrow and see if there's anything else. Your changes look good. —Ganesha811 (talk) 00:19, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mikenorton

[edit]
  • Hi Dora the Axe-plorer, finally got around to this.
Lead
[edit]
  • affected the Trans-Mexican Volcanic Belt in the states of Puebla and Veracruz - Maybe say that it "affected parts of the states of Puebla and Veracruz towards the eastern end of the Trans-Mexican Volcanic Belt", as only a small part of the belt was affected and I don't think that the term is used for a well-defined geographic area.
  • was assigned in the epicenter "was recorded at the epicenter", would be better.
  • mainshock originated within the Earth's crust - the key here is that the data recorded showed that it must be in the continental crust of the overlying North American plate, rather than the oceanic crust of the subducting Cocos plate, so we need to say that.
Tectonic setting
[edit]
  • Benz et al. (2011) talks about three large plates, meaning the Pacific, Cocos and North American plates. The Rivera plate is not mentioned in the text and only appears in one of the maps as a microplate, so another source is probably needed.
  • Two of the three plates listed, the Rivera and Cocos plates do not converge with each other, this needs rewording.
  • The Mexican landmass rests atop the westward-moving North American plate - as we're calling it a "landmass", this would be better as "The Mexican landmass forms part of the westward-moving North American Plate". Another point is that we need to be a bit more specific about which landmass we're talking about - the Baja California peninsula lies on the Pacific plate - mainland Mexico is a term sometimes used for this.
  • Some of the volcanic products in the TMVB reflect partial melting of the upper part of the subducting slab, but that is probably a detail too far for this article.
  • It aligns obliquely along the trench where the Cocos and Rivera plates subduct at a different angle - This is unclear. "It aligns obliquely to the trend of the trench" is better I think. The change in subduction angle does not match the boundary between the Rivera and Cocos plates. That boundary runs SW-NE through the El Gordo Graben and the Colima Graben into the proposed slab-tear. Suarez et al. (2019) (the cited source) says that the "location of the TMVB is due to the geometry of the Cocos plate". This is the progressive change in dip towards the southeast along the slab, from constant dip in the northwest to flat-slab (plus very steep dip further away from the trench) to the southeast> I'll see if I can find a form of words to clarify this. Perhaps something like "The change in geometry of the Cocos plate from constant moderate dip in the northwest to flat-slab (plus very steep dip further away from the trench) to the southeast produces contours on the top of the slab at 100 km and deeper that trend roughly west-east, matching the trend of the TMVB."
  • The slab is subhorizontal between Guerrero and Oaxaca, causing 250 km of flat slab subduction - "causing" is definitely the wrong word, perhaps "demonstrating" would be better. As to the distance, I checked back with the Pardo & Suarez (1995) source. Although they use 250 km in the abstract, in the main body of the paper they say "In Central Mexico, the geometry of the downgoing slab becomes almost subhorizontal between 110 km to 270 km from the trench", so that's actually 160 km extent, which matches nicely with the diagram that I recently added. I suggest that we base our text on Pardo & Suarez's formulation.
  • As a result, the volcanic arc is further than typical - this seems a bit clipped, suggest "As a result, the volcanic arc is located further from than the trench than is typical".
  • Some of these faults are visible for more than 50 km - to clarify suggest "Some of the scarps formed by these faults are mapped for up to 50 km", which also matches with the Viveros et al. (2017) source that is cited - adding "along their length" might help to make it clear that we're talking about horizontal extent.
Earthquake characteristics
[edit]
  • suggesting that the preceding mainshock was a shallow focal event - as in the lead section, should make it clear that this means in the North American plate crust

Comments by Dudley

[edit]
  • "The volcanic belt undergoes crustal extension which causes normal faults to form in response to the tectonic deformation." This is very obscure. "volcanic belt" should be linked and "crustal extension" and "tectonic deformation" are not explained in the articles they link to. I gather that it was a vertical slip outside a plate boundary, but I do not understand beyond that what you are saying. The lead should be easily understandable to non-expert readers.
Reworded and linked to rift which is a more specific example. Let me know if there still needs improvement.Dora the Axe-plorer (explore) 19:56, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "These faults can produce earthquakes and pose a threat to highly populated towns due to their close proximity." What does this mean? You appear to be saying that the earthquakes are usually close to highly populated towns, which does not make sense. Maybe when they are in close proximity?
Yes, close proximity. Reworded.Dora the Axe-plorer (explore) 19:56, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The Bishop Rafael Guízar y Valencia". Why "The bishop"? I would delete "The".
OkDora the Axe-plorer (explore) 19:56, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Mexico lies at the convergence of three tectonic plates." The articles on the plates appear to say that the convergence is off the Mexican coast.
Amended to off the coastDora the Axe-plorer (explore) 19:56, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Added "about 100 km" unless you meant using Template:Cvt is FP which you will have to explain why.Dora the Axe-plorer (explore) 19:56, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I mean that an approximate figure like 100 km should be rounded to 60 miles. 62 is false precision. See Template:Convert#Default rounding. Dudley Miles (talk) 20:59, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wouldn't the same principle apply to measurements across the whole article then? Why is 62 mi singled out. I think adding "about" before these approx figures (and the mi conversion) would suffice. Though I would agree to apply sigfig=1 across all km measurements (and the article will still have to indicate they're approx.). Dora the Axe-plorer (explore) 21:11, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That would be fine. Dudley Miles (talk) 21:24, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Crustal deformation in the TMVB is characterized by extension." No change needed, but does this mean that the earthquake occurred in an area where the earth is being pulled apart, unlike the compression caused by the Pacific plates subducting under America?
YesDora the Axe-plorer (explore) 19:56, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The assessment was based on seismic records since 1912, excluding earthquakes dating back to 1568." "excluding"? This is an odd qualification. A search in the source for "1568" gave no hits.
Reworded with additional clarification on the earthquake records. Dora the Axe-plorer (explore) 19:56, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
DoneDora the Axe-plorer (explore) 14:20, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • In contrast, intraslab earthquakes would be located further due to their deeper source." Further to what?
DoneDora the Axe-plorer (explore) 14:20, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Last para of 'Earthquake characteristics' section. I find this confusing, although this may be due to my ignorance of the geography. You say that the last major TMVB earthquake was the 1920 one, and then mention deadly ones in 1959 and 1967. Below you say that the deadliest in Mexican history was in Mexico City in 1985, and several sources say the city is in the TMVB.
I should clarify I meant the source meant most recent M6+ earthquake was in 1920. The 1967 and 1959 events are unrelated to the belt. I don't see how the statement regarding 1985 ranking 1st and 1920 ranking 2nd in death toll contradicts anything said above, especially when figures are given.Dora the Axe-plorer (explore) 14:20, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think I understand your comment now. "1985 Mexico City earthquake" is a descriptive title; the epicenter was 300 mi away in the Pacific. I'll rectify that. Dora the Axe-plorer (explore) 18:54, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the same para I would move the sentence about the Pacific coast to the end of the para, as it appears to be a separate point which interrupts the flow.
DoneDora the Axe-plorer (explore) 14:32, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "However, contemporary studies reported larger figures without discussing the discrepancy." "contemporary" is the wrong word. It implies contemporary with the 1922 report, whereas you cite much later studies.
DoneDora the Axe-plorer (explore) 14:32, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The Francisco Verdad, a National Mexican Rite fraternal organization, requested donations from its members through the local newspaper, El Dictamen." This is not significant and I would delete. Similar organizations would contribute in any disaster. Most of the contributions in this and the following paragraph are too small to be worth mentioning.
Fair enoughDora the Axe-plorer (explore) 14:20, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose from Graham Beards

[edit]

I am not convinced the prose is FA level. I found the article a slog to read; a jumble of facts rather than a continuous narrative. Here are some specific examples:

  • "There are normal faults in the volcanic belt that form because the underlying crust undergoes extension. Located near the center of maximum seismic intensity, it may represent the causative fault." This is from the Lead and I thought what volcanic belt?
Para 1 in the lede: "A moment magnitude 6.3–6.4 earthquake affected parts of Puebla and Veracruz towards the eastern end of the Trans-Mexican Volcanic Belt ..." Unless you are referring to something else I didn't catch.Dora the Axe-plorer (explore) 15:31, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Both are linked. How does this comply with WP:OVERLINK? Graham Beards (talk) 15:36, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
They link to different articles though TMVB is a specific example. I'll unlink the latter. Dora the Axe-plorer (explore) 15:44, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There is more overlinking: Metamorphosis, Teocelo, Cosautlan, Ayahualuco and Oaxaca. (Please forgive any spelling mistakes). Graham Beards (talk) 16:01, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
PS. And they should be linked on their first occurrence in the article. Graham Beards (talk) 16:28, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Right. Done with that. And it doesn't apply to the lede–body duplicate wikilinks I assume? Dora the Axe-plorer (explore) 17:04, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

-Graham Beards (talk) 11:58, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • "However, a brief account in 1546 may be an earlier example." Brief account of what?
Clarified Dora the Axe-plorer (explore) 15:31, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Seismicity in the TMVB is infrequent, with the most recent major earthquakes being the 1912 Acambay (Mw  6.9) and 1920 Xalapa events." This is an ugly fused participle. How about "...and the most recent major earthquakes were"?
RewordedDora the Axe-plorer (explore) 15:31, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Mountains in the area exhibited landslide scars which transported loose earth, vegetation and bedrock." This needs an article "The mountains..."
  • "Similarly, wooden jacales performed well in Chilchotla" Performed? Perhaps "held up" or "resisted"?
Buildings are not meant to collapse onto the people living inside so performed, they did. Though I will agree with "resisted".Dora the Axe-plorer (explore) 15:17, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That was rather patronising. Graham Beards (talk) 15:30, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Explaining my word choices? "Performed" is a term commonly used in the engineering (I'm not an engineer but I've read papers) glossary which I also used. Your wording is more reader-friendly so thank you. Dora the Axe-plorer (explore) 15:39, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, telling me that buildings are not meant to collapse onto the people living inside. As if I didn't know. Graham Beards (talk) 15:42, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The hospital was so severely cracked that it was at risk of collapse, but was running at full capacity treating patients." What else do hospitals do apart from treat patients?
The fact that it was at risk of collapse but running at full cap describes the gravity and urgency in the aftermath. A rational human being would never think to step foot in a building that could seriously injure them if it collapsed. I think this statement should remain. Dora the Axe-plorer (explore) 15:22, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You have missed the point entirely. Why add "treating patients"? Graham Beards (talk) 15:28, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Removed that bit Dora the Axe-plorer (explore) 15:46, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "At a performance theater" What other sorts of theaters are there in this context?
The performing arts kind as opposed to a movie theater Dora the Axe-plorer (explore) 15:17, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What difference does it make? It's this kind of trivia that spoils the prose. Why not just say "theater"? Graham Beards (talk) 15:40, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You're right about that. Article suffers from my obsession with unvaluable detail Dora the Axe-plorer (explore) 15:50, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In Teocelo, Guízar officiated a sermon and distributed" So what, he's a priest.
I noticed this article contains a number of non-notable additions which I've agreed to remove. This being one of them in an effort to trim the prose. Dora the Axe-plorer (explore) 15:11, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "He also preached in other affected areas until 1921." So what?
Addressed in above comment Dora the Axe-plorer (explore) 15:17, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Several Mexico City newspapers also wrote that Veracruz was destroyed, which its city officials refuted" Newspapers don't write, journalists do.
AddressedDora the Axe-plorer (explore) 15:17, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]


The two FAC reviewers before you took their time scrutinizing the article and typed out all their thoughts and confusion in a constructive manner. It's very helpful from my end observing and learning the process when I'm a first time nominator. They took of their time to reveal as many problems to me before closing with a decision, which I appreciate far more. Dora the Axe-plorer (explore) 14:40, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You are unfamiliar with the FAC process. First, this is not peer review, articles are expected to be FA quality, or close to it, before nominating. And second, I haven't closed the discussion: far from it. I am sorry you do not find my comments constructive. They were meant to be so. I suggest you take a look at other nominations to see how things are done at FAC. A bit of advice, it is best to work with reviewers rather that taking umbrage. Graham Beards (talk) 14:50, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Great, I look forward to your further comments. I will reply to every comment you make above then. TY Dora the Axe-plorer (explore) 15:07, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note that Graham was giving examples ("Here are some specific examples:") not providing an exhaustive list. Graham, and the coordinators, will require reassurance that similar issues do not remain elsewhere, see eg WP:FIXLOOP. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:48, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/1920_Xalapa_earthquake/archive1&oldid=1264119401"