Jump to content
Wikipedia The Free Encyclopedia

Talk:1946 Ancash earthquake

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Add topic
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Latest comment: 1 year ago by Dawnseeker2000 in topic GA review
Good articles 1946 Ancash earthquake has been listed as one of the Natural sciences good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Review : March 1, 2025. (Reviewed version ).
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the 1946 Ancash earthquake article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the subject of the article.
Find sources:Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WPrefs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject icon Earthquakes Mid‐importance
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Earthquakes , a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of earthquakes, seismology, plate tectonics, and related subjects on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EarthquakesWikipedia:WikiProject EarthquakesTemplate:WikiProject EarthquakesWikiProject Earthquakes
Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject icon Peru Low‐importance
WikiProject icon This article is supported by WikiProject Peru . This project provides a central approach to Peru -related subjects on Wikipedia. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.PeruWikipedia:WikiProject PeruTemplate:WikiProject PeruPeru
Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Peru To-do:
WikiProject icon Disaster management Low‐importance
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Disaster management , a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Disaster management on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Disaster managementWikipedia:WikiProject Disaster managementTemplate:WikiProject Disaster managementDisaster management
Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

GA review

[edit ]
Latest comment: 1 year ago 7 comments2 people in discussion
GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:1946 Ancash earthquake/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: DoratheAxe-plorer(talk · contribs) 12:54, 24 February 2025 (UTC) Reply

Reviewer: Dawnseeker2000(talk · contribs) 00:18, 1 March 2025 (UTC) Reply


I'll take this one. Dawnseeker2000 00:18, 1 March 2025 (UTC) Reply

GA review
(see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose, spelling, and grammar):
    b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable , as shown by a source spot-check.
    a (references):
    b (citations to reliable sources):
    c (OR):
    d (copyvio and plagiarism):
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects):
    b (focused):
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:
  6. 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:

· · ·

Comments

[edit ]

"However, due to the region being highly inaccessible and road closures due to landslides and fractures, these ruptures may be longer than reported". Can we think about how to make this sentence a little more readable? I get what it is saying, but I think there is potentially missing information. For example, the scarps weren't longer because of the road blockages; it's because the investigators couldn't access the area. I don't mean to ask you to make this a much longer portion; in fact, try not to add much at all; just maybe use different words to make is a little more clear. Dawnseeker2000 03:23, 1 March 2025 (UTC) Reply

"These segments were separated by a 12 km (7.5 mi) zone without ruptures, possibly because it did not reach the surface or was accommodated by other faults." A little more of the same here. For people that are familiar with earthquakes, we get some of the ideas why a visible fault rupture may end and then begin again. It's the text "or was accommodated by other faults" portion that could use a very brief explanation. Also, is the buried rupture link a MOS:SUBMARINE or no? Dawnseeker2000 04:17, 1 March 2025 (UTC) Reply

How are both sentences looking now? Dora the Axe-plorer (explore) 05:07, 1 March 2025 (UTC) Reply
Thanks for the clarification. Dawnseeker2000 05:48, 1 March 2025 (UTC) Reply

AltStyle によって変換されたページ (->オリジナル) /