# Talk:1946 Ancash earthquake

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: Dora the Axe-plorer (talk · contribs) 12:54, 24 February 2025 (UTC)
Reviewer: Dawnseeker2000 (talk · contribs) 00:18, 1 March 2025 (UTC)

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


### Comments
"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)
"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)

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