# Talk:1979 Coyote Lake earthquake

This review is transcluded from Talk:1979 Coyote Lake earthquake/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: West Virginian (talk · contribs) 16:41, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
Dawnseeker2000, I will engage in a comprehensive and thorough review of this article within the next 48 hours, especially so I can continue to put to use all the earthquake and tectonics terminology and theories that I've learned from your previous earthquake articles. Please let me know if you have any questions or comments for me in the meantime. Thanks! -- West Virginian  (talk) 16:41, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
Dawnseeker2000, following my thorough and comprehensive review and re-review of this article, I assess that it exceeds the outlined criteria for Good Article status. Prior to the article's passage, however, I have a few comments and suggestions that should be addressed first. Thank you for all your phenomenal work on this article. -- West Virginian  (talk) 16:55, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
It is reasonably well written.
a (prose, no copyvios, spelling and grammar):  b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): 

It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (reference section):  b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR): 

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 and other media, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales):  b (appropriate use with suitable captions): 

Overall:
Pass/Fail: 

Lede

Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section, the lede adequately stands alone as a concise overview of the 1979 Coyote Lake earthquake. The lede defines the earthquake's effects, establishes context for the earthquake, explains why the earthquake is notable, and summarizes the most important points of the earthquake.
The info box template is beautifully formatted, and its contents are cited within the prose, utilizing inline citations.
The California location map is licensed CC BY-SA 3.0 and is therefore suitable for use here.
In this first sentence, you can probably also refer to the time as local time rather than PDT.  Done I've changed the infobox as well.
"lasted throughout the remainder" may work better here, but this is merely a suggestion.  Done Agreed, this is another good tip. Keep them coming!
The lede's content is well-written, its contents are sourced and cited within the prose below, and its references are verifiable. I have no further comments or suggestions for this section.
Tectonic setting

This section's content is well-written, its contents are sourced and cited within its prose, and its references are verifiable. I have no comments or suggestions for this section.
Earthquake

Calaveras Fault can be de-linked in the first paragraph as it was wiki-linked above in the "Tectonic setting" section.  Done Thanks for spotting the overlinking.
It may help provide more geospatial context if the distances to Santa Rosa and San Luis Obispo from the epicenter were stated here. Again, this is just a suggestion.  Done The source does mention the distance felt, so I've included it.
You may want to render high-rise with a hyphen.  Done
Rather than use occurred twice in one sentence in the first paragraph, I suggest changing one of these instances into "took place" or "transpired."  Done Changed one instance to "was located".
The USGS ShakeMap is released into the Public Domain, and is therefore acceptable for use here.
As stated in a previous review for the 1991 Sierra Madre earthquake, I recommend you sign up for Wikipedia:Newspapers.com for more data points on damage and reactions.
This section's content is well-written, its contents are sourced and cited within its prose, and its references are verifiable. I have no further comments or suggestions for this section.
Response

This section's content is well-written, its contents are sourced and cited within its prose, and its references are verifiable. I have no comments or suggestions for this section.

Good morning/afternoon, West Virginian. I've responded to the suggestions by making the minor changes to the article. Can you look it over once again? Dawnseeker2000 16:12, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Dawnseeker2000, good morning to you as well! I've re-reviewed your article and find that you have sufficiently addressed my comments and suggestions above. It is hereby my pleasure to pass this article to Good Article status. Congratulations on another job well done! -- West Virginian  (talk) 16:23, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
Many thanks. Enjoy the rest of your Sunday, Dawnseeker2000 17:14, 31 May 2015 (UTC)