Talk:1986 North Palm Springs earthquake

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:1986 North Palm Springs earthquake/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Some Dude From North Carolina (talk · contribs) 01:47, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

• Add a short description and then WP:ALT text to both images.
• "a M5.8" → "an M5.8"
• Add a serial comma after "the California Division of Mines and Geology".
• Archive sources (you can use this).
• That's it. Great work on the article.
• Ping when done. Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 16:23, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

• @Dawnseeker2000: it has been a week Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 18:17, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
It is reasonably well written. a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): It is factually accurate and verifiable. a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism): It is broad in its coverage. a (major aspects): b (focused): It follows the neutral point of view policy. Fair representation without bias: It is stable. No edit wars, etc.: It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate. a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Overall: Pass/Fail:
· · ·

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.

---

This review is transcluded from Talk:1986 North Palm Springs earthquake/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: LunaEatsTuna (talk · contribs) 21:59, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

• Short but sweet! Overall a great article—sources are RS, perfect sections, formatting, infobox, navboxes and cats. However, before I can pass this article I just have a few concerns with the prose and formatting of the refs for which I have left some comments below. 𓃦LunaEatsTuna (💬) 21:59, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

  Hi @LunaEatsTuna, I've addressed the prose issues; the only one I left out is "The Windy Point Bridge", similar to "The California Aqueduct", it I don't see an issue with it. I'm can only give full dates to a limited number of references; not all are available except the year. Dora the Axe-plorer (explore) 05:41, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

  Fair enough; thank you for informing me. As for the reference dates that is totally acceptable if you cannot find their exact dates; really no need to worry about that! :) I am satisfied with these changes and I am now happy to pass this article for GA status. Congrats on another GA! Hope to see more of your work. 𓃦LunaEatsTuna (💬) 05:59, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

Copyvio check

Earwig does not show anything of concern.

Files

File:USGS Shakemap - 1986 Palm Springs earthquake.jpg: good, public domain per USGS copyright policy.

Refs

Citations are all RS and confirm the information presented in the article.

Conveniently for me, there are only nine references and all are available online, so I was able to verify each of them.

Text and refs

• "the length of California, where much of its length the fault is clearly identifiable" – missing a word?
• "The Windy Point Bridge was displaced on the" – is the necessary for referring to this bridge? (I speak British English so let me know if this is the standard elsewhere); speaking of:
• "The Windy Point Bridge was displaced on the I-10 northwest of Palm Springs and was considered major damage." – this sentence reads awkwardly to me; is it really necessary to note that this was considered major damage?
• "the California Division of Mines and Geology, and a private company." – I reckon the name of said company is relevant. Do the sources say what it is called?
• Add template:Use mdy dates and template:Use X English under the short description.
• Add WP:ALT text to the image.
• Some of the refs to journals have full dates whilst others have only years; it is generally okay for books to have only years, but other citation templates should remain consistent.

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.