405:
entire article - it leaves it with a disorganized feeling and, as reader, I felt that the information I was reading was... I'm not sure... out of context, perhaps, because it takes a while for it to be tied to the subject of the article, which should be the focus. In any case, if you added something even to the effect of "On Day X, 1962, an earthquake centered in Y hit Iran" and then continued with what is there, it might really help. Also, what exactly "Bou'in-Zahra" is is never mentioned in the body - is it a city, province etc.?
384:
255:
157:
361:
347:
316:
216:
292:
265:
230:
202:
171:
443:
implement a better quality of design, highlighting that Iran is among the most seismically active countries in the world" is not really supported by the references in the article - I only see one world organization and one
American scholar discussing the issue in the body (and "recently" should not be used, as it is necessary to
451:
Overall I feel that this article would require a lot of work before it could meet the GA criteria, thus I am failing the article at this time. Also, I believe that a second review and a second pair of eyes would be very beneficial to this article, and with the GA Backlog
Elimination drive in effect,
427:
Same paragraph, I really feel that this strays from the topic of the article. Yes, some background is helpful, but I'm not sure how Person X's theories about the fault line itself matter in the context of an article about a particular earthquake. Maybe if this were an article about the Ipak Fault or
442:
Aside from what I mentioned earlier about the lead not covering material that is not present in the body, it is written that "Iran's building codes, renowned for performing poorly during earthquakes, were recently evaluated by multiple world organizations. Most hope that the
Iranian government will
419:
Same section, third paragraph, "A feature that, with its connected, smaller faults, extends for 64 miles (103 km), it runs from the village of Ipak to
Takhrijin" is technically a correct sentence, but is very difficult to read and could probably be re-organized, perhaps by adding "It is..." at the
408:
Regarding the prose, it's very choppy and difficult to read at parts. There are too many short sentences that could easily be combined to improve flow. The very short paragraphs are an issue for prose flow as well - usually my rule is that paragraphs should be at least three sentences, but here
404:
The largest problem with this article is that it doesn't actually mention the earthquake happening in the body of the article itself! It mentions some details in the lead, but the lead should not introduce facts that are not present in the body of the article. This absence really throws off the
423:
Same section, fourth paragraph, "For this theory, Manuel
Berberian presents various examples." Who is Manuel Berberian and why do we care about what he has to say? Without introducing him by profession and credentials, I have no idea if he's some guy off the street or a credible
452:
I suspect that this article would get a quick review if it were to be renominated. Thank you for your work thus far. Once these concerns have been addressed, the article may be renominated. If you feel that this assessment was in error, you may take it to WP:GAR.
415:
Under "Geology", second paragraph, "In fact, the earthquake rate is lower than the national amount" - Aside from "in fact" not being a particularly encyclopedic phrase, this statement is not sourced - the article merely says that "Experts say earthquakes here are
400:
The third link under "Bibliography" is dead. References #4 #10 should note that a subscription (or whatever it is) is required for access. Reference #12 just says "Di Cinto pp. 272", but nowhere is a full reference for his publication
434:
Other than the reference problem mentioned, I have the same issue with
Marcello Di Cintio as I did with Berberian. Is he some guy who wrote a book, an established Iranian literary figure, a well-known Italian scholar, or something
409:
meeting that requirement doesn't particularly help. If you could combine smaller, related paragraphs or attach one onto a larger one, it might help. Right now, it reads almost like a bulleted list of facts and information.
428:
Earthquakes in Qazvin
Province, but here it just seems out of place, particularly as the earthquake itself has barely been mentioned in the body of the article. Again, the focus of this article should be on the event.
438:
Under "Future threats", "In a 2004 report, it was listed as "the worst offender" globally for poor earthquake engineering." Which report and who issued it? Again, the importance/credibility of the source needs to be
431:
Under "Damage and casualties", second paragraph "Cities as far away as Tabriz, Esfahan and Yazd reported the tremor." - This doesn't mean too much without knowing how far away these places are.
73:
69:
54:
46:
412:
The picture of where the earthquake struck would be much more appropriate in the introduction of the article to help situate the reader for what is to follow.
135:
129:
62:
339:
17:
222:
39:
163:
458:
188:
114:
98:
420:
beginning or "A feature that extends for 64 miles (103 km), with its connected, smaller faults, it runs...
23:
453:
109:
93:
463:
329:
119:
103:
444:
278:
353:
208:
108:
I will be reviewing this article in the near future, most likely tomorrow.
81:
50:
8:
338:(images are tagged and non-free images have
24:Talk:1962 Bou'in-Zahra earthquake/GA1
7:
333:, where possible and appropriate.
291:
264:
229:
201:
170:
31:
382:
359:
345:
314:
290:
287:Fair representation without bias
263:
253:
228:
214:
200:
169:
155:
445:avoid statements that will date
18:Talk:1962 Buin Zahra earthquake
1:
383:
360:
346:
315:
254:
215:
156:
479:
464:01:47, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
120:02:10, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
104:02:10, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
145:reasonably well written
352:(appropriate use with
327:It is illustrated by
279:neutral point of view
243:broad in its coverage
340:fair use rationales
311:No edit wars, etc.
184:factually accurate
124:Okay, here it is:
354:suitable captions
22:(Redirected from
470:
461:
456:
435:else/in-between?
386:
385:
363:
362:
349:
348:
318:
317:
294:
293:
267:
266:
257:
256:
232:
231:
218:
217:
209:reliable sources
204:
203:
173:
172:
159:
158:
117:
112:
101:
96:
86:
77:
58:
27:
478:
477:
473:
472:
471:
469:
468:
467:
459:
454:
396:Some comments:
276:It follows the
250:(major aspects)
115:
110:
99:
94:
67:
44:
38:
36:
29:
28:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
476:
474:
449:
448:
440:
436:
432:
429:
425:
421:
417:
413:
410:
406:
402:
394:
393:
392:
391:
390:
389:
370:
369:
368:
367:
366:
325:
324:
323:
322:
321:
301:
300:
299:
298:
297:
274:
273:
272:
271:
270:
239:
238:
237:
236:
235:
207:(citations to
180:
179:
178:
177:
176:
140:
139:
87:
35:
32:
30:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
475:
466:
465:
462:
457:
446:
441:
437:
433:
430:
426:
422:
418:
416:infrequent,".
414:
411:
407:
403:
399:
398:
397:
388:
387:
380:
377:
376:
374:
371:
365:
364:
357:
355:
343:
341:
335:
334:
332:
331:
326:
320:
319:
312:
309:
308:
306:
302:
296:
295:
288:
285:
284:
282:
280:
275:
269:
268:
261:
251:
247:
246:
244:
240:
234:
233:
226:
224:
212:
210:
198:
194:
193:
191:
190:
185:
181:
175:
174:
167:
165:
153:
149:
148:
146:
142:
141:
138:for criteria)
137:
133:
131:
127:
126:
125:
122:
121:
118:
113:
106:
105:
102:
97:
92:
88:
85:
84:
80:
75:
71:
66:
65:
61:
56:
52:
48:
43:
42:
33:
25:
19:
450:
439:established.
395:
378:
372:
351:
337:
328:
310:
304:
286:
277:
259:
249:
242:
220:
206:
197:(references)
196:
187:
183:
161:
151:
144:
128:
123:
107:
90:
89:
82:
78:
64:Article talk
63:
59:
40:
37:
51:visual edit
189:verifiable
401:produced.
379:Pass/Fail
260:(focused)
91:Reviewer:
34:GA Review
455:Canadian
111:Canadian
95:Canadian
424:expert.
373:Overall
152:(prose)
74:history
55:history
41:Article
330:images
305:stable
303:It is
281:policy
241:It is
182:It is
143:It is
132:review
134:(see
83:Watch
16:<
460:Paul
186:and
136:here
116:Paul
100:Paul
70:edit
47:edit
164:MoS
447:).
381::
375::
358::
350:b
344::
336:a
313::
307:.
289::
283:.
262::
258:b
252::
248:a
245:.
227::
223:OR
219:c
213::
205:b
199::
195:a
192:.
168::
160:b
154::
150:a
147:.
130:GA
72:|
53:|
49:|
356:)
342:)
225:)
221:(
211:)
166:)
162:(
79:·
76:)
68:(
60:·
57:)
45:(
26:)
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.