Jump to content

Talk:1992 St. George earthquake

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Did you know? nomination

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Yoninah (talk00:09, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Created by Nihonjoe (talk). Self-nominated at 00:17, 19 March 2020 (UTC).[reply]

  • Article is new enough and long enough. I am not sure if the earthquake occurred near the Hurricane Fault (as the source seems to imply) or on the fault as the article says. I think that the sentence supported by #3 would be better sourced to #1. A contemporaneous report from the journal Arizona Geology reported Mw5.5 from the University of Arizona and Mw5.9 from the USGS. needs sourcing. AGFing on #2 and #6. Perhaps the hook would be better worded as "... that the 1992 St. George earthquake did more damage outside of St. George?". Didn't notice any copyvio or plagiarism. QPQ is OK and sources look reliable to me. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:18, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Nihonjoe:: These are the issues left:
  • I am not sure if the earthquake occurred near the Hurricane Fault (as the source seems to imply) or on the fault as the article says.
  • I think that the sentence supported by #3 would be better sourced to #1.
  • A contemporaneous report from the journal Arizona Geology reported Mw5.5 from the University of Arizona and Mw5.9 from the USGS. needs sourcing.
  • Perhaps the hook would be better worded as "... that the 1992 St. George earthquake did more damage outside of St. George?".
Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 19:30, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Jo-Jo Eumerus: I've fixed the wording for the first item. I added #1 as a source to the only sentence with #3 as a source. I see no issue with using multiple sources there. I added the source for the third item. It looks like I had simply forgotten to copy it over. I'm fine with the wording either way. If you want to list it as an ALT, we can then use it. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 20:43, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
And added ALT1. Note that the source does not say that the earthquake is named after the town, but that's rather pedantic. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 21:07, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't, but it would seem to be one of those obvious things that doesn't need a source. I'm fine with ALT1. Thanks for taking the time to review this one, Jo-Jo Eumerus. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 00:53, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]