1920 Xalapa earthquake is a former featured article candidate. Please view the links under Article milestones below to see why the nomination was archived. For older candidates, please check the archive.
	1920 Xalapa earthquake has been listed as one of the Natural sciences good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones Date Process Result October 30, 2022 Good article nominee Listed April 3, 2023 Peer review Reviewed November 13, 2024 Peer review Reviewed December 23, 2024 Featured article candidate Not promoted A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on November 8, 2022. The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that the first probable scientific study of aftershocks following a destructive earthquake was undertaken after the 1920 Xalapa earthquake? Current status: Former featured article candidate, current good article

This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Earthquakes Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Earthquakes, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of earthquakes, seismology, plate tectonics, and related subjects on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EarthquakesWikipedia:WikiProject EarthquakesTemplate:WikiProject EarthquakesWikiProject Earthquakes Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Mexico Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Mexico, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Mexico on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MexicoWikipedia:WikiProject MexicoTemplate:WikiProject MexicoMexico Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Geology Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Geology, an attempt at creating a standardized, informative, comprehensive and easy-to-use geology resource. If you would like to participate, you can choose to edit this article, or visit the project page for more information.GeologyWikipedia:WikiProject GeologyTemplate:WikiProject GeologyGeology Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Disaster management Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Disaster management, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Disaster management on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Disaster managementWikipedia:WikiProject Disaster managementTemplate:WikiProject Disaster managementDisaster management Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

@Dora the Axe-plorer: I've redrawn the cross-section diagram as promised. I've tried to make it a bit more user-friendly, but I may have failed. Let me know if you have any issues and if there's anything either superfluous or missing. You are, of course, not required to keep this in the article. Mikenorton (talk) 22:29, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Mike, this is valuable in visualising subduction geometry! Dora the Axe-plorer (explore) 23:25, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I saw that there was an outstanding oppose for this FAC and decided to take a look at one section at random. I picked "Damage and casualties"; here are some comments.

• I can see why Graham felt the text was not a smooth read. Sections like this, which tend to accumulate facts from multiple sources, can be hard to write because a lot of the information is hard to paraphrase, so it can feel like a data dump. For example: At least 419 deaths were from a landslide triggered by the earthquake. Many residents died in Patlanalá (239), Barranca Grande (101), Cosautlán (85), Quimixtlán (80) and Teocelo (35). In Xalapa, the death toll was between 3 and 50. At least 167 were injured, including 85 in Teocelo; 60 in Cosautlán; and 10 in Quimixtlán and Xalapa, respectively.
  • The repetition of "At least" is ugly; the sense of being fed data is going to be strong no matter how you write a paragraph like this, so try to avoid anything that feels like repetition.
  • The range of "3 to 50" is so wide as to be surprising, but there's no comment associated with it. I can't read Spanish, but from the source I can read I would guess you have two sources that give the two numbers. I don't think it's a good idea to quote that as "3 to 50"; it would be more natural to tell the reader exactly what the sources say -- something like "Contemporary newspaper accounts reported fifty dead at Xalapa, but a modern assessment only counts three fatalities" (I made that up, based on a guess at what the modern source says, but you get the idea).
  • The long list of deaths and locations is tedious to read, as is the list of municipalities with damage. Could a table be made of this, so that the prose could be written without having to include these lists?

A table could work, but there is no casualty breakdown for the upper-end figures. They all come from the SSM, which is also the lowest of the range.Dora the Axe-plorer (explore) 21:17, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• The section starts with "The earthquake killed between 648 and 4,000 people": as above the range is so broad that it's surprising, and we should draw the reader's attention to it immediately, instead of waiting another sentence or two. Perhaps "Sources differ on the number of deaths caused by the earthquake: contemporary reports estimated that there were between 2,000 and 4,000 dead, but ...". Again this would also help flow.

RewordedDora the Axe-plorer (explore) 21:17, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• The comment about heavy buildings that were not seismic resistant makes me wonder whether building with seismic resistance in mind was ever done at the time these buildings were constructed. If we can source it it would be nice to add that as context: something like "None of the buildings had been built with seismic resistance in mind, and many heavy masonry buildings experienced serious damage." And let's avoid the repetition of "heavy".

Right, and heavy has two meanings there.Dora the Axe-plorer (explore) 21:17, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• A couple of prose infelicities:
  • "a mass that cascaded through multiple villages for 20 km (12 mi) and leaving": discrepancy in tense between "cascaded" and "leaving"
  • "In the worst affected area, landslides occurred from Chilchotla to Acantiopa": this is a bit vague -- was the area from Chilchotla to Acantiopa the worst-affected area? Or was it just an area within the worst-affected area, which is what the current syntax implies?
  • "The mountains in the area exhibited landslide scars that dislocated earth, vegetation and bedrock." The scars didn't dislocate anything -- the landslides did the dislocating.
  • "The city's hospital was so severely cracked": the hospital as a whole can't be said to have cracked -- its walls and foundations presumably cracked.
• "Some commercial offices and churches sustained cracks while collapsed homes claimed lives": I think this is just about Orizaba, but it's a generic statement that was probably true everywhere. I think this list of facts in this last paragraph would be better presented as some introductory summary comments -- whatever you can source that is generally true, such as this sort of generic statement -- followed by individual examples from the various towns.

All of the points above have been addressed Dora the Axe-plorer (explore) 17:08, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• This is hard to avoid, but there is repetition in the section from the different reasons for introducing the comments. For example, you have the comment about heavy masonry buildings that were not seismic resistant in the first paragraph; in the fourth paragraph you have "Many stone buildings were heavily damaged". The first one is there because of the seismic resistance comment; the second is there to contrast with the lesser effect on the wooden jacales in Saltillo Lafragua. Anything you can do to assemble this narrative to avoid repetition like this would be helpful.

I'm doing a run to re-work some of these repetitions if I come across them. Dora the Axe-plorer (explore) 17:08, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'll review the rest of your comments and ping after Xmas Dora the Axe-plorer (explore) 19:55, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

OK -- I'll be travelling from the 28th till the 5th but should have some access to respond during that time. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 20:29, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Safe travels, Merry Christmas! Dora the Axe-plorer (explore) 20:59, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Mike Christie Hi, you may revisit the article. I've addressed your concerns above Dora the Axe-plorer (explore) 16:30, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Will take a look when I have a few minutes. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 16:48, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm doing a bit of copyediting as I read through; please revert if there's anything you disagree with. I'm going to start with the "Damage and casualties" section since that's what I commented on at FAC.

• We say it was the second-deadliest earthquake in Mexico, but we give a wide range of numbers for the victim count. What was the victim count for the third-deadliest? Is it definitely below the lowest estimate for this earthquake?

From the reliable sources I've gathered, yes, even the lowest estimate is marginally higher than the known 3rd deadliest, in 1973: [1] [2] [3] [4] Dora the Axe-plorer (explore) 18:44, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've read through this section several times and looked at the sources, though I haven't yet translated parts of one of them. I'd summarize the contents as: (1) total fatalities and estimates; (2) landslides and river damage and associated casualties; (3) building damage and associated casualties. The problem with that organization is that it naturally means you're going to have to mention some locations twice as they'll appear in both (2) and (3). A purely geographical organization , listing each location and what the issues were, is worse, though, because it would mean going back and forth between the landslide and building damage. So I think the organization is right at the moment.

Having said that, I wonder, as I said at the FAC, if a table would help pull out some of the specifics so that the text could be more fluent. What would you think of a table with these columns (this is based on one of the tables in the sources):

• Village name
• Population if known
• Estimated fatalities
• Notes

The notes could include comments indicating disagreement among the sources and/or causes of the casualties where known (landslides, river flow, building collapse). I think it would be worth trying this approach.

I had a table in an old revision I could restore. A note is definitely needed. Dora the Axe-plorer (explore) 18:44, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think that looks good. Can we now remove the sentences starting "Significant fatalities" and "In Patlanalá" since the table covers that information? We'll have to move the images around a bit too as the table is squashing them up against each other, but that can wait till the section is rewritten. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:22, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Done the "Significant fatalities" one, I'll find a way around the images soon. Dora the Axe-plorer (explore) 16:36, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Having said that I have some comments about the ordering of information in this section, though some of these points may become moot if we do end up with a table.

• The landslide information is distributed through the section which makes it feel choppy. For example, we get the total estimated fatalities from landslides in the first paragraph, followed by casualty numbers from some locations (from a different source, which makes me wonder if we can really compare them in this way). Then we talk about property damage, but then the second paragraph goes back to landslides again. We mention the Huitzilapa river, then talk about damage, then mention the river again. We say hyperconcentrated flow occurred but it appears we can't be very specific about the stretch of river where that occurred. If we're not going to use a table I think this material should be brought together in a way that avoids repetition.
• Similarly the coverage of the building damage is back-and-forth; we get comments about masonry buildings in the first paragraph, then we talk about the landslides, then we go back to building damage.

The paragraphs have been shifted so landslide is at the end. The building damage details are retained, but I'll see what else can be improved. Dora the Axe-plorer (explore) 17:01, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• We say four villages were "buried" on the way to the coast; do we know the names of these villages?

Yes, they've been added.Dora the Axe-plorer (explore) 17:01, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• The large boulders near Cerro Colorado and Acantiopa -- were these from the landslides or the river flow? That seems too large for the river flow but it's not completely clear from the current wording.

The source doesn't specify that, also partly because I'm not great with Spanish and rely on a translator. I've removed that bit since it's not a particularly crucial component.Dora the Axe-plorer (explore) 17:01, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Let me know what you think. If you decide against a table I can go through and try some more copyediting if you want, or you can make edits to address the comments I'm making, assuming you agree with them. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:03, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I moved some sentences around for sequencing; see what you think. Another question:

• "The earthquake triggered landslides that obstructed the Huitzilapa River and its tributaries. Between Chilchotla and Acantiopa, landslides mostly occurred along the Huitzilapa River and tributaries." This is repetitive. Can we just cut the second sentence? Does it tell us anything new?

Agree to cut Dora the Axe-plorer (explore) 17:01, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

-- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:33, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dora the Axe-plorer, I've finished a pass through. I have not yet looked at the lead but will do so when these points are all addressed. I hope these comments are helpful. By the way, what's a good abbreviation for your username? DtA? Dora? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:20, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

woops I missed this, DtA/DTA is fine Dora the Axe-plorer (explore) 16:40, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at the "Tectonic setting" section:

• "Seismic strain at the subduction zone causes earthquakes and tsunamis when it is released, while volcanism occurs when the subducting plates (slabs) dehydrate during metamorphism. Released water causes the overlying mantle to partially melt and rise through the overriding North American plate, creating volcanoes.". This gives two consecutive explanations of the volcanism; I think the second is an expansion of the first, but it might be better to put a full stop after "when it is released", and make a single sentence out of the remaining phrases that explains the volcanism.

DoneDora the Axe-plorer (explore) 17:10, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• I have some more comments on the prose of this section, but looking through I wonder if it's a bit too detailed for an article about a specific earthquake. I don't know much about plate tectonics or about how the earthquake and tectonics articles on WP are organized, so this might be a stupid question, but would it be better to have an article about the geological environment of central Mexico (or whatever the appropriate region would be) as the "main" article for this section, and then shorten this section a bit? Otherwise presumably every article about a central Mexico earthquake would have to repeat this whole section. Pinging Jo-Jo Eumerus, who writes geological FAs, for another opinion.

Now that you've said it, I agree it's detailed but I'll need more time to examine which are the appropriate chunks to remove.Dora the Axe-plorer (explore) 17:10, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Some notes to plan the cut-down

• Oblique alignment of TMVB can be removed
• then we don't have to explain in detail the geometry of Cocos slab, or a condensed version though I'll worry reviewers would ask more questions
• Cocos plate generate earthquakes at 60–100 km depth > fine to keep in my view
• Remaining is fine

Dora the Axe-plorer (explore) 17:16, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

-- More to come. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:14, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• The hypocentre is given as 15 km below the surface, with no indication of uncertainty. If I understand the terminology correctly, the hypocenter is directly below the epicentre. The discussion of the epicentre makes it appear that it had to be estimated from the reported strength of shaking at various locations. Shouldn't we have some corresponding indication that the hypocentre position is an estimate? Or was there sufficient seismic data gathered, even back then, for the depth to be accurately determined?

I should indicate this is a fixed depth because there is too little seismic data to reliably calculate a depth. So it is approximate. The USGS has a similar explanation for why they have many earthquake's depth at 10.0 km. However, the source does not state this. Dora the Axe-plorer (explore) 21:01, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

At least two papers give 15 km without adding a note about the depth uncertainty Chavez & Castro 1988, Suter et al 1996. Córdoba-Montiel et al 2018 suggests 15 km or less based on the observation that past crustal seismicity have occurred at 15 km or shallower depth. Addressing the depth problem doesn't seem to be a crucial component in their research areas as they don't provide a margin of error. Dora the Axe-plorer (explore) 22:27, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• "a fault length of 25 km (16 mi) was estimated, corresponding with the meizoseismal area". I think we could avoid using "meizoseismal area" in a case like this -- just "area of maximum earthquake damage" would be fine. But I don't understand the point being made -- are we saying that the fault length is always the same as one of the dimensions of the meizoseismal area? If not, why are mentioning the correspondence?

They probably meant to say that the area closest to the fault would generally experience the worst damage, which is true in most observations, hence there could be a damage pattern that would align approximately with the rupture dimensions.Dora the Axe-plorer (explore) 21:09, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Similarly I don't think we need a technical term like "lineament" when a simple definition could be substituted.

I would disagree, the corresponding source called it a linearment which they believe is a fault, but they are uncertain and don't investigate further. I think we should use the same term defined in the source. Dora the Axe-plorer (explore) 21:01, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• As far as I can tell the Modified Mercalli Intensity Scale was developed after 1922, but the second paragraph of the "Earthquake characteristics" section cites some of the MMI numbers to a 1922 paper. Can you verify that those numbers are appropriately cited?

Corrected to the Mercalli-Cancani intensity scale stated in the 1922 source.Dora the Axe-plorer (explore) 21:01, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• I also noticed that many of the numbers in that section are given as quite definite, but surely they are estimates? The epicentre itself is an estimate, and I gather there was little seismic data available so I was surprised not to see any statement of uncertainty. Or is it the case that MMI numbers are assigned on the basis of contemporary descriptions of surface effects anyway, so the seismic data is not really needed?

Seismic data is not required to assess MMI/MCS numbers, they require fieldwork and plotting observations on a map then estimating the area.Dora the Axe-plorer (explore) 21:22, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• "Data from the seismograph indicated that these aftershocks occurred 30–40 km (19–25 mi) from where it was installed, confirming that the preceding mainshock was a shallow focal event within the North American plate. In contrast, deeper intraslab earthquakes would be located further from the seismograph.". If I understand this correctly, how about "Data from the seismograph indicated that these aftershocks occurred 30–40 km (19–25 mi) from where it was installed. This confirmed that the preceding mainshock was a shallow focal event within the North American plate, since a deeper intraslab earthquake would have been located further from the seismograph."

Yes, that means the same thing, I could break the sentence.Dora the Axe-plorer (explore) 22:11, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• "Since 1568, the TMVB has experienced earthquakes as large as Mw  7.6". I don't know what this is telling me -- there haven't been any with magnitudes larger than this? There have definitely been ones with magnitudes of this size? The next sentence qualifies this too, but since I don't understand this one I don't understand the second one either.

Reworded, is this better?Dora the Axe-plorer (explore) 22:10, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• "Some earthquakes with epicenters in Veracruz have been deadly, such in 1959 and 1967": I don't see a 1967 earthquake in List of earthquakes in Mexico; should it be listed there? And is it worth a redlink in this article? I would think any earthquake that caused fatalities is probably notable.

There was a damaging earthquake in 1967 that corresponds with the one in the source, but it did not cause deaths. It can be removed.Dora the Axe-plorer (explore) 21:01, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• The last paragraph is about the general earthquake history of the region. I don't have a strong opinion about this, but maybe it could be trimmed a bit -- same argument as for the tectonic section; it would have to be repeated for each article about an earthquake in the area, so perhaps it belongs in a parent article.

I've trimmed it. Dora the Axe-plorer (explore) 22:10, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's it for this section. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 20:39, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• "The San Francisco de las Peñas municipal government": where is this? I tried searching for a town of this name and couldn't find it.

La Antigua, Veracruz: the city was renamed.Dora the Axe-plorer (explore) 21:23, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• "For reconstruction, the local government allocated between ...": what government does this refer to? We've already talked about the state level response.
• Suggest redlinking El Dictamen -- e.g. see es:El Dictamen.

Done Dora the Axe-plorer (explore) 19:46, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• "public donation drives that also contributed to the amount": meaning the amount they raised is included in the number already given? If so we need to make that clear in the previous sentence; if not we need to rephrase.

Reworded Dora the Axe-plorer (explore) 19:46, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• "officiated a sermon" is an odd way to say it -- normally one would say "preached a sermon".

Reworded Dora the Axe-plorer (explore) 19:46, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• The figures in the last paragraph are all in US dollars. Is that how the source gives them? They are so oddly precise, down to the dollar, that I wonder if these were originally in pesos and round numbers, and have been converted to dollars with unrealistic precision?

The original source had them in pesos in the 1920 rate which I left as is, but in the PR and FAC a few editors noted the article jumped between peso and USD (Catholic Telegraph) and asked for an inflation conversion. The currency exchange 1920 is from the Federal Reserve and inflation is Wikipedia's template because Ganesha811 requested it. I could do a round down at the tens to avoid MOS:UNCERTAINTY Dora the Axe-plorer (explore) 21:33, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I can understand why readers might object to having three numbers listed every time (pesos, 1920 $, modern $) but in your shoes I would be tempted to stand my ground and say that not indicating the peso amount would not accurately represent the source. Could we do something like putting the peso amounts in a footnote? And yes, I think rounding would be a good idea -- the rounding should match the precision of the original. For example if the source says 250,000 pesos, we should give the conversion as something like $2,700 rather than $2,690. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:54, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Done Dora the Axe-plorer (explore) 19:45, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

-- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:03, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've looked at some of your fixes and they look fine. Let me know when you're done with any edits in response to my comments and I can read through again and see if I can find any other suggestions to make. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:54, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Mike Christie, your points have been addressed or I have replied to them. Thanks. Dora the Axe-plorer (explore) 03:40, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Suggest cutting "towards the eastern end of the Trans-Mexican Volcanic Belt" from the first sentence. We've already got the location in geographical terms, and many readers won't know what the TMVB is. I'd move this information to the start of the second paragraph.

DoneDora the Axe-plorer (explore) 17:09, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Suggest using the inflation template for the $150K in the lead.

DoneDora the Axe-plorer (explore) 17:09, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• "Beneath land, the Cocos plate generate earthquakes at 60–100 km (40–60 mi) depth, but cease abruptly some 100 km (60 mi) south of the TMVB.". Some singular/plural problems here. Should it be "generates" and "these cease"?

Yes, done. Dora the Axe-plorer (explore) 17:09, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• "East–west striking normal faults form because of this tectonic deformation; some of these fault scarps are mapped for up to 50 km (30 mi).". I think the rather technical language in this whole section may be a problem at FAC. I don't usually object to technical language, but some reviewers do, so simplifying where possible is a good thing. Here, can we make this "East–west faults form because of the extension; some of these faults have been mapped for up to 50 km (30 mi)."? And perhaps put "(stretching of the crust)" after the first use of "extension" in the previous sentence?

Done. I should make use of these more often if a simpler term isn't available. Dora the Axe-plorer (explore) 17:09, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Do we need the sentence starting "Recent geologic activity ..."? Again it's technical and the evidence given isn't really relevant to the article. If you feel we need to know there has been recent geological activity, can we just say "There is evidence of ...?"? Though I think the next sentence,, "Mexico is one of the world's most seismically active regions", tells the reader that perfectly well.

Agreed to omit Dora the Axe-plorer (explore) 17:09, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• "This length correlates with the area of maximum damage": suggest "This length correlates with the meizoseismal area (the area of maximum damage)". Since we have the technical term occurring in the next few sentence, we might as well take the opportunity to give an inline definition.

Alright, a footnote is added. Dora the Axe-plorer (explore) 17:09, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• I still think "lineament" is an unnecessary technical term, and we'd lose nothing if we just said "linear feature"; I know you don't want to change this, so this is just a comment.

I'm alright with linear feature so I've changed it Dora the Axe-plorer (explore) 16:49, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That's everything. I think this is in pretty good shape and expect to support this when you bring it back to FAC. Thanks for having patience with my nitpicks. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library)

• And I just noticed a couple of Harv errors in the sources so you might check for those. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 16:38, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I've omitted the unused cite Dora the Axe-plorer (explore) 17:09, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Mike Christie Hi, thank you for scrutinizing the article and the feedback. I think it'll be a good idea to get additional feedback from other FAC reviewers to look through the scientific aspects of this article as it's quite content-heavy. However, I'm not keen to open a 3rd PR and prefer to use this talk page for discussions.

A look at the last FAC in seismology, AirshipJungleman29 and HJ Mitchell made some comments and I thought I could ping them for their review. I understand the volcanology topics also have a few FACs so participants could chip in. Perhaps you may have some thoughts about this? Dora the Axe-plorer (explore) 17:27, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That's sensible. I think Airship and Harry are neither of them experts in the topic; they review a fair amount and cover all kinds of topics. You can always ask them, of course. If you're looking for a review from a subject matter expert then any of the geology-related nominators would be reasonable people to try. (I assume you've tried leaving a note at the relevant WikiProjects?) I think you'd have a good chance this time round even if you don't get any takers, though; people are more likely to review when they see a good deal of work has been done since a failed nomination, and (just in my opinion) I think this is now FAC quality. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 17:46, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

One more suggestion -- you might consider doing a few reviews at FAC. There's no requirement to do so, but it's a page that survives on contributions of reviews from nominators, and it will generate good will if people see you chipping in some reviews. On average it takes six to eight reviews to promote a featured article, so I try to do that many reviews for each article I nominate. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library)

I'll take note of this during the FAC. Thanks Dora the Axe-plorer (explore) 19:11, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @AirshipJungleman29: (thanks for recently reviewing 1958 Firuzabad earthquake btw) and @HJ Mitchell: both of you gave comments in 1995 Aigio earthquake's FAC. I aim to make 1920 Xalapa earthquake an FA but in my 2nd PR, I didn't get enough comments so the FAC felt more like a PR and ultimately archived. Mike Christie has been incredibly helpful and I would like another pair of eyes to look at the article; I want to address the problems other editors may potentially raise before the FAC. Would you take some time to also provide feedback? Dora the Axe-plorer (explore) 19:10, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I will do my best to look it over. I have limited time for Wikipedia at the moment but I'm hoping I'll be more available in the next couple of weeks. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 11:48, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]