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

Italy Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Italy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Italy 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.ItalyWikipedia:WikiProject ItalyTemplate:WikiProject ItalyItaly Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. 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.

I have tagged this article with {{Ref expand}} ("Ref" in this case meaning "citation") because of various citation issues. E.g., the magnitude is attributed to the Italian National Institute of Geophysics and Volcanology, with a wikilink to their Wikipedia article. This is not a citation, it does not explain where this information can be found. There similar problems with other references where a full citation to specific source is provided: there is no insource specifier (such as a page number) describing where the information is to be found within the source. (I did not tag all instances.)

The latter problem is due to repeated use of "named refs", which does not handle insource specifiers. There is a way to fix these (without using the ugly {rp} template); I will be pleased to help anyone that wants to work on this.

I have also tagged the geological background sentence ("due to the collision of ..."): Time magazine is not a reliable source for geology, and the USGS supplied "Tectonic Summary" for another quake in the same is not necessarily correct for this quake. Possibly the INGV has some text on this somewhere, or consult a geology textbook. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:14, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]