# Talk:1979 Imperial Valley earthquake

Even last year it was clear there was more to add here, but I ran out of juice back then and just getting back to it now. Added more detail on the aftershocks and damage plus added another paragraph to clarify the unusually high pga reading (couldn't just leave that high number in the infobox w/ no explanation). 
Some other work was done to unify the refs, just in case someday going for a good article. I thought twice about doing this, since I was focused mainly on adding material and cleaning up some of my own overly wordy text from last year (I actually trimmed some down with this add too), and didn't necessarily want to mess with Mikenorton's text. But I did relocate or reuse some (text that was in the body is in the lead now, for example), plus I formatted the refs in a uniform way by doing first initial and last name and dropped the accessdate field on the journal articles.
Also going to up this to a B-class. It was already there, but last spring when I did the assessment sweep I think I was too cautious with some of the WP Earthquake articles and went with C when a handful could have gone up to B. This has got to be one of the nicest earthquake articles to work on. Really enjoyed doing the research. Dawnseeker2000  02:20, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:1979 Imperial Valley earthquake/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Secret (talk · contribs) 01:29, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
Will be reviewing this article tomorrow. Secret account 01:29, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for stepping up. Dawnseeker2000  02:13, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
Hello Secret, 
Following the review, some time may be needed depending on the level of changes that may need to take place. I have time on weekday evenings (I live on the US west coast) but not really enough to really dive into the work, and so weekends are where major changes would need to happen, if required. Looking forward to the review, Dawnseeker2000  14:41, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
Sorry for the delay, RL interfering, I should be able to review this tomorrow. Thanks Secret account 06:10, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

No worries, thanks for checking in. Dawnseeker2000  22:41, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
I don't mean to subtract from the review, but since Secret is busy I figured I'd provide some of my own comments.

$30 million USD, I would presume. Should mention that.  Done
Inconsistencies in spelling of numbers over 10. Usually anything over 10 is not spelled out. Fixed this somewhere but probably missed a few.  Done
Inconsistencies in usage of convert. There should be a convert for the US gallons; I didn't insert it because I'm not totally familiar with the abbreviated usage of {{convert}}.  Done
What is slumping? I've never heard that used; it's utter jargon.
Tom Heaton & T. Leslie Youd's jargon. I've removed one instance and replaced another with settling, but maybe there's another word that can be substituted there because it's used twice now in close proximity. I haven't re-read the source yet and may get some ideas when I do. Dawnseeker2000  02:39, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
Why on earth would the geology section be directed to the article "1892 Laguna Salada earthquake"?
That earthquake is mentioned in the text and the article had been linked there initially just as the text "1892" because a series of earthquakes are listed chronologically, and I thought it might be better to make it more prominent, because that article's Tectonic Setting section is detailed, and the reader would gain a broader perspective of the plate boundary and fault layout in that region by following the link. I've moved the link back to the inline style.
British spellings are sometimes used, but it's an American article.  Done
Right_lateral should have an endash between it, as should any similar constructions.  Done
The earthquake caused damage to the Californian towns of El Centro, Brawley, Calexico and to Mexicali, just across the border in Mexico. - This sentence is awfully confusing. It makes it sound like Mexicali is in CA, and then adds a bit of nonsense at the end that doesn't make any sense.
I've fixed that up. Dawnseeker2000  02:39, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
You should be using nbsps (ie. California Highway Patrol, which goes onto the next line).  Done
What's with all the see alsos at the tops of each section?
I use those along with the normal "See also" section at the bottom of articles and sometimes in place of it altogether. It's nice to have the items in the sections that they correspond to. Dawnseeker2000  02:39, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
Seems like it needs a lot of work on the details, but it's in pretty good shape. Nice job. ceranthor 22:50, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Update
I've made some changes based on Ceranthor's input, but can the original reviewer have a say on this article's status please. Dawnseeker2000  01:49, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

The introductory section seems a bit long. The third paragraph in particular (regarding the May 1940 earthquake) contains no direct information about the topic of this article. Should the information in this paragraph be somewhere else? Is there a way to state directly how the 1940 earthquake pertains to the 1979 event? Also, I think the last sentence, "Four of the region's known strike-slip faults and one additional newly discovered normal fault all broke the surface during the earthquake.," refers to the 1940 event. But the use of 'the earthquake' in the introductory section should really refer to the topic earthquake, not to some other event.Elriana (talk) 21:48, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Dropped the material about the 1940 event, but left the mention of the multiple faults where slip was observed because they're mentioned in the article. Thanks for the tips, Dawnseeker2000 00:47, 13 June 2015 (UTC)