# Talk:Seattle Fault

Having some familiarity of and interest in the topic, I have replaced the initial description of the Seattle fault with an expanded description, with sources.
I have left (at least for now) the section on potential damage as I have less interest and
acquaintance with that.  However, it could be much improved.  Just following some of the articles I have cited (and look for articles that cite them) leads to a whole raft of stuff.
(The tsunami studies certainly should be included - see nctr.pmel.noaa.gov/pugetsound/pre2/.)
If I get back to this I will most likely pull that newspaper reference, as it is only a derived source, and I favor citing the source sources.  If anyone else wants to work on this I'll be happy to help with the sources.  J. Johnson (talk) 23:38, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
Substantially augmented.  My goal was to provide a comprehensive and scientifically accurate (including documentation) treatment, but keeping a popular orientation.  (Scientifically this fault is no more significant than many others, but it has a much greater popular interest.)
I think I have largely met that goal.  Though could use some more images. J. Johnson (talk) 23:15, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
I have finished a review and revision of the article, am about to request GA review. - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:09, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

I have reverted the recent change of order of the appendices to restore the External links before the Notes and References.  Granted, WP:APPENDIX says it should be the other way, but due to the extensive list of notes and references the readers are likely to not even see these links, which defeats the purpose of having them.  In this matter I deem the MOS to be what it says, a guide, and that in this case the inversion of order is reasonable. - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 20:32, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

I fixed the misspelling of "Haiti" in the caption under the picture of a tipped crane in Port-au-Prince. Since there's been so much discussion of the article, thought I should write this note.  Confused at the inclusion of the Haiti picture, since this has nothing to do with the Seattle Fault. (I have no connection with Seattle or Haiti.) Melba1 (talk) 17:08, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

I reckon that picture as a good example of what could happen to the shipping facilities in Seattle.  I suppose I should add something making that clearer. - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:23, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Seattle Fault/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Racepacket (talk) 02:11, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Thank you for nominating this article. No disamb. or invalid external links.
Is it reasonably well written?
A. Prose quality: 

wikilnk: Interstate 90, West Seattle, LIDAR,  Puyallup River, Duwamish River
Reword: " It is the northern edge of the Seattle Uplift, of which the Tacoma Fault is the southern edge." Perhaps, "The Seattle Uplift is bordered by the Seattle Fault on the north and the Takoma Fault on the south."
"lidar-based mapping"->"LIDAR-based mapping"
When you say that issues are unresolved, shouldn't you qualify it as "As of 2003," or whatever the date of the references is?
B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists: 

Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
A. References to sources: 
Fn 1-7, 13, 14, 20, 33, and 36 need page numbers.
B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary: 

C. No original research: 

Is it broad in its coverage?
A. Major aspects: 
What monitoring is in place to track activity on the Seattle Fault? What institution is monitoring seismic activity along the fault?

B. Focused: 

Is it neutral?
Fair representation without bias: 

Is it stable?
No edit wars, etc: 
No edit wars.
Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales: 

File:Seattle Fault location.png does not seem proper.  It claims that it is the work of J. Johnson, the nominator, but it also says it is based on  Washington State DGER Geological Map GM-52, available at http://www.dnr.wa.gov/RESEARCHSCIENCE/Pages/Publications.aspx. So where is the license for using that work?
File:Seattle - Earthquake damage to Cadillac Hotel 2nd Ave S in Pioneer Square, 2001.jpg - the date given is 29 January 2010, but I would expect the damage to be repaired long before that given that the earthquake was in 2001.  I don't understand who gave it the CCA 2.0 license.
B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions: 

Overall:
Pass or Fail: 
This article represents significant work by its author. Putting review on hold for you to address concerns. Racepacket (talk) 02:59, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
Do you have any views on the suggestions from the first good article review?

1. Thank you for the review.  I have made most of the changes suggested, with the following exceptions.  "I-90" is not wikilinked because the reference here is as a local topographic feature, which the Interstate 90 article does not illustrate or enhance.  Nor "West Seattle"; I have wikilinked to the more specific Alki Point and Fauntleroy locations.  Regarding the structure of that sentence: making "Seattle Uplift" the subject makes it temporarily more prominent than the SF, which confuses the focus; SF should be the subject. If the structure seems to contorted, perhaps another forumulation can be found.
2. Citations:  Those without page numbers refer to the whole article, not to any particular page or section.  As to the reliability of sources: all of these are high quality, reliable, reputable sources, and I believe appropriate for the use.  So I don't understand what the question here is.
3. The question re monitoring suggests a misunderstanding of the nature of seismological monitoring.  There is no special monitoring of this fault (or any other in the region), nor any point in doing so.  There is a regional network of seismological monitoring (which the Puget Sound faults article links to), but this has no specific relevancy to this fault.
The reader gets the impression that this is a potentially dangerous fault. It leaves the question in the reader's mind, is anyone watching it.  The answer may be that it is being monitored along with the rest of the Puget Sound fault system. Please consider adding such a sentence to the article. If there is more detailed data that would be fine as well, e.g., "The University X geology department routinely monitors all faults in the Puget Sound fault system and detect seismic activity every month..." or whatever. Racepacket (talk) 02:31, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
  I think I see where you are coming from with this, and for sure this is a potentially very destructive fault.  And, yes, there is monitoring, but it is not like there is a list of faults which are being watched in case they catch fire or something.  Earthquakes are largely unpredictable; aside from general expectations of a liklihood of a quake of some size there is nothing to watch for.  The monitoring is mainly to collect data for scientific analysis, with a hope to clarifying fault structure and dynamics across the entire region.  They are not monitoring "faults", they are monitoring seismic activity, where ever it occurs.
   In a review of a prior (and shorter) version of this article there was a comment that the number of citations in GeoRef might support a longer article.  That work is pretty technical, so while it could support a deeper treatment (with more explanation), I don't think there is much scope for a broader treatment.  Except in regard to other faults in the region, but that is more suitably covered in the Puget Sound faults article.
4. There is a problem with one of the images (got overlooked); that is being worked on.  On the Cadillac Hotel image, I don't understand this comment regarding this "29 January 2010" date, nor where this date comes from; it certainly does not occur in the article.
The date is 2001 now. Racepacket (talk) 02:31, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
  So no issue?  For sure I do not see (nor have seen) that date anywhere here.
There is another question I would raise: should the lead sentence be augmented with something like "which present serious earthquake hazard to the region"?  I am rather ambivalent about that, a push either way would be welcome. - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:29, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
I would leave it out, but that is a matter of personal opinion. Racepacket (talk) 02:38, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
  Okay!  Part of me thinks it should go in, but I couldn't convince myself.  :-)
  - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:19, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
I trust you to follow through on the image or remove it. Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia and another good article. Racepacket (talk) 00:05, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
Thank you for the review.  I have gotten permission for the image, we're just waiting for OTRS to process it.  Any Day Now.  (Sort of like earthquakes!)  - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 00:41, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

This has been discussed hundreds of times, and WP:IMGSIZE is a Wikipedia policy. There is broad agreement here among thousands of Wikipedia editors.The issue is that every reader has a different display resolution, and you and I have no idea what that resolution is, or what looks good to the user. Except for one thing: we know -- or should presume -- that the user knows what they're doing when they set their user preferences. If the user says, "I think images look best in articles with a default width of 300px, it makes no sense to say back to them, "I can't see your display, I don't know what your monitor looks like, but I'm going to force you to have a 200px wide image here because that's what looks good on my display." Or to say to the user who has a very small display and has asked for 150px wide thumbnails, "No! You get 300px. It looks good for me and too bad for you."With the (confusingly named) upright= parameter, you set your image sizes in proportion to whatever thumb size they have asked for. They normally get upright=1.0 which is the same as |thumb|, and for the lead image you raise that up to upright=1.35, which is about 300px if they are using the default 180px thumb size, though it could be much more or less depending on their preferences. Some diagrams, or very tall or short images should be set to upright=1.2 or whatever to give a more consistent look, but still the basis is that upright=1.0 is a typical image.If thumb looks too small on your display, that means you need to go into preferences and increase your default thumb size to something that makes the typical image look good on your display. That puts you in the best position to estimate how it will look when scaled to match whatever others have chosen for their displays. Forcing one image size on everyone pretty much assures it's going to look awful for every reader except you. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 18:27, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
I understand that displays differ, but the having the images at "thumb" size makes them hard to see and reduces their effectiveness.  However, I will take a look at the link you provided.  ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 20:03, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
Just to repeat, if they're hard to see on your display, that means you need to increase the size of thumbs in your preferences. It's a mistake to force everyone to view images too large because you happen to have a larger display -- it's the entire point of having a thumb size and user preferences. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 20:14, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
It is not a matter of "hard to see" on my display, it's putting in visuals that integrate with the "story". And one of those images is intended to give an "in your face" visual for the surrounding text.  Letting users customize their display parameters is one thing, but forcing every image in every article to be a thumbnail unless and until the reader expressly opts otherwise, and denying the editors any control over the article format, does not sit well with me.
I will look at those links when I get some time. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:10, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
The policy allows for exceptions. For example, I set Image:ayahos3.png to upright=1.2 instead of the default thumb width because it's a very wide image and it looks too small at the default. But it's still set at a ratio of the user's preference; not a single rigid number of pixels for all displays. The fact is, with the Web, you will never have total control over what the reader sees. The whole point of HTML markup is to give flexible descriptions of documents that allow variable rendering to suit the target display. The world much prefers that to the rigid formatting of everybody sending each other Word Docs or Adobe PDFs.This is Wikipedia policy. Exceptional articles may be exceptions, but this article is not all that exceptional: it's a text description with several photos and diagrams to illustrate. There's no compelling reason why it should be formatted in a dramatically different way than a normal article. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 22:36, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
I do not recall ever seeing the frame parameter on images, and I do not see anything in the policy describing its use. Where can I read more about that?  Blue Rasberry (talk) 23:42, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
It's found in Wikipedia:Picture tutorial#frame. It displays images in their native size, and says, "This usage is mostly obsolescent as it does not allow resizing, but you may see it in older articles." Resizing is a vital feature. I'm going to go ahead and put the article back within policy since we haven't seen any reasons given why this article needs to be formatted so differently than policy and the Manual of Style suggest. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 02:19, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
How about you folks slowing down a bit?  I have not had time to look at those policies (which might convince me), and this full speed ahead is getting annoying. It is, frankly, making me feel reactively resistant.  (Slow down!!)  Plus, there's been some other changes slipped that have not been discussed.  So, per WP:BRD, I am going to do some reverting.  Then discuss?  And since nothing is actually on fire, let's take a little more time on this. Okay? ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 20:37, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
Putting an article in compliance with the MOS and policy is about as non-controversial as you can get. Take all the time you need to find reasons why this article needs to deviate so far from policy, and then post your reasons and explain why this article is the exception. Until then, the default is what's prescribed by norms that have the community consensus. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 01:20, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
May I remind you that MOS is not policy, but only a guideline? And that (WP:BRD aside) just bombing in and making changes, no matter how perfectly reasonable you think they are,  without any consultation IS NOT CONSENSUS. Besides which your attitude has rather gotten my attitude up.  So just back off a bit.  Wikipedia is not going to fail just because you can't "fix" this article this week.  Or even next week. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:21, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
Click on WP:IMGSIZE, read what it says, and then scroll up to the top of the page. It says, "This page documents an English Wikipedia policy." It's clear that you think BRD gives you permission to edit war, and to violate WP:OWN. You have still not given a single reason why this page is different than any other page. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 21:56, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
Would you mind assuming good faith?  I have not, am not, saying that this article should exempted from any policy — you misconstrue the issue.  What I am saying is that you do not have any exemption re the requirement for consensus.  I grant you Bolds (as in WP:BRD); but I do object to your characterization of my Reverts as edit warring.  Let's straighten that out, then we can go to Discussion of the content issue.  As the following section is of the same context, I propose that this be discussed there, and the discussion on images (here) be temporarily deferred. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:35, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

What exactly is wrong with putting the external links section in the conventional location? What is wrong with converting units of measure for the benefit of people who might understand one system better than another? And what is wrong with fixing links to redirects? All of these are covered by Wikipedia policies and style guides. --Biker Biker (talk) 21:15, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Back in January this same thing came up on the talk page -- I don't understand the rationale that was applied for nonstandard section ordering, it looks like "I don't like it" to me.  At the time there weren't a lot of people active on the article so I let it go to see if consensus would form. I really don't see why this article is Super Special and can't follow the conventions established per policy for every other article. It looks like consensus is building around this point of view. — Brianhe (talk) 21:27, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
Section order is covered at MOS:APPENDIX, which clearly sets out the standard order to be used at the end of articles. Consistency is important and there is no reason why this article should be different from every other article on Wikipedia that does comply. I agree it does look like "I don't like it", which is one step away from "It's my article, back off" i.e. WP:OWN. --Biker Biker (talk) 21:30, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
Yes, the WP:MOS gives very simple reasons why: "The goal is to make the encyclopedia easier and more intuitive to use. Consistency in language, style, and formatting promotes clarity and cohesion; this is especially important within an article." We default to the house style in the absence of clear reasons why the article must deviate. We haven't been told what the reasons are so we should stick with the MOS. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 01:26, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
Like I just said, above, bombing in and "fixing" things without discussing them is NOT CONSENSUS.  So instead of saying, "according to our guidelines...", or "how about ...", and likely bringing me around, no, you have "right" on your side, so you don't need any stinking consensus.  Well, I didn't really want a fight, but I don't like getting stepped on, either. You want to discuss?  Fine. Revert first. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:37, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
OK, you want discussion. What are your reasons for deviating from the MOS? --Dennis Bratland (talk) 22:04, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
There seems to be clear conensus from me, Dennis and Brian. Your actions are now bordeline tendentious. Reverting valid changes e.g. to invalid links and clear manual of style issues is disruptive. Please stop. --Biker Biker (talk) 04:32, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

 Splitting this off so will be little clearer. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 00:43, 5 September 2012 (UTC) 
Prior to the discussion of MOS, or images (section above), is the common context and discussion of consensus, WP:BRD, and WP:AGF. What we have gotten into is some strong attitudes — mine as well as yours and Dennis' — and what I would like to discuss first is how to get back into a collegial mode.  I invite your attention to the last line of WP:BRD#Bold: "If you do this cycle perfectly, most people will grudgingly accept you. Do it less than perfectly, and they will certainly be mad at you. Do it wrong, and they will hate your guts." My take on this is that you two have acted "less than perfectly", which has induced in me a strong antipathy to what you have done.  (Strictly speaking I object only to how you have proceeded, but the antipathy is strong enough to color my attitude about what you have done.)  Can we resolve this first, and restore some collegiality? Might I even ask for an assumption of good faith? ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:18, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
I am still waiting for a discussion on the rude and arrogant manner in which two have proceeded. And I claim that you proceeded without consensus. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 00:43, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

See WP:TALK. The purpose of this page is only to discuss ways to improve the article. If you want to discuss the behavior of other editors, the appropriate venues are the other editor's talk page, Wikipedia:Wikiquette assistance, Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct, and Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.The suggestion that anyone proceeded without consenus is absurd. The WP:MOS is the result of consensus of tens of thousands of editors. It's the basic rules that all articles use. There are uncounted numbers of Wikipedians who routinely find any and all articles that deviate from the MOS, and go right ahead and bring them into compliance. It's about the least controversial, least bold kind of changes anyone can make.It is patently silly that you have become so offended at anyone's attitude. As if they had to politely wait for your permission before making simple MOS corrections. Wikipedia does not work that way. The only policy being violated here is WP:OWN. You do not own this article and it is a violation of the basic premise of Wikipedia to behave as if you are the gatekeeper of change to be made. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 00:52, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
I propose that this conversation start over. If someone proposes a change to this article then post the diff here. If anyone asserts that the change is contrary to the manual of style then that person can revert and post a rationale. The reason why I am requesting this is because a third party cannot read the discussion on this page and understand what is being proposed. The person making the proposal to change could show their diff here and describe it as one way of proceeding.  Blue Rasberry (talk) 01:00, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
A diff would not be suitable for the nature of the changes implemented, but no matter: a description of the change suffices. At any rate, the issue (as I see it) is not what was to be done, but how. Dennis seems to claim that "tens of thousands of editors" gives him a general right that preempts any need for consensus in specific cases, and excuses him from any requirement of civility or AGF.  (I am particularly annoyed that he keeps misconstruing my complaint as WP:OWN.) But he may be correct regarding discussion of bad behavior, so I am considering taking this elsewhere. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 20:12, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
I fail to recognize in your reply a request or statement to which I can respond. If you have a conduct complaint then I do encourage you to take it elsewhere - the above links are appropriate. If you decide to talk about this page then you are welcome to make a proposal, but conduct discussions about particular editors should not go here. Feel free to cite this page when you make a conduct complaint, and feel free to link to the conduct complaint on this discussion.  Blue Rasberry (talk) 20:21, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

The term "Indian" is ambiguous and antiquated when referring to Native Americans.  Usage should be replaced with either a general term (like "Native American") or references to specific region groups or tribes (if that information is available).  dgbrownnt (talk) 01:56, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

It rather sounds like political correctness, which I despise. But I have no objection if want to make that change. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:37, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Seattle Fault. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091022110259/http://earthquakes.usgs.gov/regional/qfaults/ to http://earthquakes.usgs.gov/regional/qfaults
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:10, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 11 external links on Seattle Fault. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090826144546/http://quake.usgs.gov/research/deformation/modeling/papers/parsonsetal2002/Brocher_etal.pdf to http://quake.usgs.gov/research/deformation/modeling/papers/parsonsetal2002/Brocher_etal.pdf
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091022110259/http://earthquakes.usgs.gov/regional/qfaults/ to http://earthquakes.usgs.gov/regional/qfaults
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060414112612/http://earthquake.usgs.gov/regional/pacnw/activefaults/sfz/ to http://earthquake.usgs.gov/regional/pacnw/activefaults/sfz/
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080512092903/http://www.pnsn.org/HIST_CAT/SRL76-4Ludwin.pdf to http://www.pnsn.org/HIST_CAT/SRL76-4Ludwin.pdf
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100614222540/http://web.cocc.edu/breynolds/classes/UO_Geol_353/Seattle%20paleoearthquakes.pdf to http://web.cocc.edu/breynolds/classes/UO_Geol_353/Seattle%20paleoearthquakes.pdf
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080820044944/http://faculty.washington.edu/tpratt/JGR97.pdf to http://faculty.washington.edu/tpratt/JGR97.pdf
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100602031608/http://www.seattle.gov/dpd/news/URMfinalreport.pdf to http://www.seattle.gov/dpd/news/URMfinalreport.pdf
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060304124959/http://earthquake.usgs.gov/regional/pacnw/ to http://earthquake.usgs.gov/regional/pacnw/
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090420104526/http://earthquake.usgs.gov/research/groundmotion/movies/ to http://earthquake.usgs.gov/research/groundmotion/movies
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060526162156/http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2002185299_earthquake20m.html to http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2002185299_earthquake20m.html
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110728153128/http://www.vashonbeprepared.org/media/VashonEarthquakeStudy.pdf to http://www.vashonbeprepared.org/media/VashonEarthquakeStudy.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:03, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

WP:BRD has been invoked. @J. Johnson: would you mind discussing what you find problematic in this edit? ☆ Bri (talk) 22:36, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
As you asked so nicely: sure.
I have the following objections to Tisquesusa's massive edit.

Size reduction of lead image.
Reduced size of the lead image to the point where the label text is smaller than the size of the text font makes it hard to read, and obscures the detail of the image background which gives the picture context relative to downtown Seattle. The resultant effect is a bright red line across a blur of water and landscape of undistinguished feature.
I just used the first image for the infobox, if you feel another image is more appropriate, use that one. No reason to brutally the good hour I put into getting it there.
You should pay more attention to what I said. My objection was to the "brutal" reduction of size of the image when you moved it into the infobox. That you spent an hour on the task is not my fault, nor that you couldn't figure how to use the |size= parameter.  Bri figured it in short order, so the issue is now moot. -JJ
Addition of map showing the location of Seattle.
Not necessary, even pointless. If a reader is in doubt just hit the wikilink.
Maps are a part of every infobox. Not everyone is accustomed to Seattle and its location in the US. You have a wider audience than just Seattle readers. "just click another link" is a moot "argument", applicable to anything; "just Google".
Your "just Google" is a bullshit "argument".  A single click on the Seattle link (see for yourself) suffices to provide all the information a casual passer-by is likely to want, including a location map. Assuming the readers can't figure that out impugns their competence. -JJ
Infobox detail:
The Seattle fault is not associated with the Cascade Range.
The eastern part of the fault extends into the Cascade Range, that is clear from the map.
On which map is that clear to you? Perhaps you are unclear as to the eastern extent of the "Approximate location" map? Or do you have an alternate source? All of my information says you are wrong on the facts. -JJ
Changing the section header "Notable earthquake" > "Notable earthquakes" :That section describes a single earthquake, the latest, which is the sole notable earthquake on the Seattle fault.
Then either change that back or remove information about earthquakes happening in Pre-Columbian times, which are mentioned. Again, no reason to revert.
What "information about earthquakes happening in Pre-Columbian times"? That section mentions no other earthquakes but the one discussed.  Did you mistake mention of multiple reports of an earthquake for reports of multiple earthquakes? As it is, that section is about one earthquake, and making the header plural was factually incorrect. Certainly reason to revert. -JJ
Inserting {convert} where equiv. value is supplied.
Unnecessary use of a template. Just not needed.
Convert temps are a general use on Wikipedia and even a requirement for GA articles today. That the article may have been passed in the past is no reason to brutally revert those changes
More b.s. For sure, {convert} templates are widely used. But not required, not even for GA. A clarification, please: are you implying that the prior GA reviewer was in error, or even incompetent, to pass on not using {convert}? -JJ
Changing Notes > References, Sources > Bibliography.
There is no requirement for "References" and "Bibliography", and I reject that change on the basis of WP:CITEVAR.
References are direct references to papers or pages therein. Bibliography lists the publications that are linked under references, this has been so for years.
Entirely your personal interpretation. More WP:JDLI? -JJ
Changing "late Eocene" to "Late Eocene".
No such epoch; the latter is just a redirect to "Eocene". Use of uncapitalized "late" indicates an approximate qualifier, not a specific epoch or age.
Late Eocene is a definitive object; the Late Eocene is a subset of Eocene, spanning 22 million years, so a long time. Eocene|Late Eocene is a common way of linking that, see other articles.
Capitalized, "Late Eocene" might be a concept; it is not a geological Epoch, nor an Age. That it might be common in other articles is irrelevant, particular as it is redirected to Eocene. While I haven't checked the sources, my recollection is they use "late" as a qualifier of Eocene. Unless you can show otherwise I suggest you respect the sources. -JJ
♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 00:27, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
In all honesty, I was about to demote this article from GA. It is barely acceptable. But instead I decided to improve it with at least an infobox. You didn't discuss, and worse; didn't respect the work I put into it to improve it, but just brutally reverted without anything. If that is the way you like to work, I will proceed and start the GAR process, because it is sub-par. (Personal attack removed) Be good, willing and understanding and you receive the same. Tisquesusa (talk) 01:23, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
T: You really should consider that all of your comment could as well apply to you. E.g., did you discuss what you intended to do? Where did you raise a question or objection regarding a possible problem? Where is the respect for my work, that you are so full of the rightness of your work that need no discussion is necessary? You state that this article is "subpar", but that is just your unsupported personal opinion, and, lacking any proper basis, is just plain WP:I just don't like it, and is not helpful.  (And please note: JDLI, plus the uncivil language and attitude, suggests a lack of good-faith.)
An apparent difference here is that you seem to be rather thin-skinned.  Wherefore you really should be more temperate in your approach, attitude, and language, because I tend to respond at the level set.  So when I reply to your responses to my objections: if you want to be combative, there will be combat.  Alternately, you might try to be willing to understand.
You complain that my reversion of your bold edit was "brutal". (Because it didn't come wrapped in kind, soft words?) Well, that is the nature of WP:BRD – is it necessary to explain that to an experienced(?) editor such as yourself? Though you might note that bold editing is qualified with "f you advance a potential contribution on the article's talk page, and no response is received after a reasonable amount of time". But while Bold editing does not require prior discussion, neither is it required for Reversion. You should note the specific injunction: "Don't restore your changes or engage in back-and-forth reverting." ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:49, 16 March 2019 (UTC)


### Trial infobox
Starting with the infobox, does this look close to a good rendition? I'm trying to find how to use the relative image size in the ibx. ☆ Bri (talk) 00:38, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
Yes. Originally the image had |upright=1.35, but the infobox seems to boost it a bit. I should point out that the SF results from N-S shortening, not "Cascadia subduction" as such. I suspect the only "orogeny" that can be associated with the SF is that of the "Issaquah Alps". :-) ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 01:22, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
Great, I'll bring the ibx into the article soon. Will wait for discussion on the other items. I agree that {{convert}} isn't really necessary if there's already a hand-coded conversion (and it is correct). ☆ Bri (talk) 03:15, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
Ah, I while kind of like of referring to the "orogeny" of the "Issaquah Alps" — should I assume you are familiar with the local topography? — it certainly is a bit flippant, and I could see it being objected to. But I don't mind leaving it in until someone takes it out. It might even be nice bit of humor to preserve. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 00:00, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
@J. Johnson: Just returning to this as it has dropped off my radar for most of the year. Probably a joke shouldn't be left in; is there a more relevant way to describe the Issaquah Alps wrt the Seattle Fault? Or should it just be deleted from the infobox? ☆ Bri (talk) 21:11, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
Hi, Bri! Good to hear from you. "Joke" is perhaps too strong of a characterization, though I suspect many of the locals would be amused at such pretentiousness. For that reason my "like" is to leave it in, though some editors seem opposed to any such levity ("tone"). A more substantial objection would be sourcing. While I think there is a source (Blakely et al. 2002? or perhaps Pratt?) regarding the general uplift south of the fault (but I haven't had time to check it), it might not specifically name the Issaquah Alps as such. But I suspect that the orogeny of some of the Alps – particularly Tiger Mtn. — is independent of the SF. So I am quite okay with removing that. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:28, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
Okay, I removed the text from the infobox and added this, based on the dotted line in the map image. This was rather "freehand" so of course I'll understand if there's a better description you can provide. ☆ Bri (talk) 23:41, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
Just a few words: the flag icon has to go per MOS:INFOBOXFLAG and the red title header is a bit too strong. SounderBruce 23:20, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
Deleted icon. I'll leave the text color up to another editor. It seems this is built into {{Infobox fault}}. ☆ Bri (talk) 23:40, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
The red is pretty strong, but that's an infobox issue.
I pulled the mention of the Issaquah Alps as they are not mentioned in the source. (Also replaced the url for the source.) And I was just thinking: perhaps "Cities" should include Bremertown and Bellevue. And Issaquah? ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:00, 21 October 2019 (UTC)