Talk:Earthquake light/GA1

GA review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Nominator: Very Polite Person (talk · contribs) 23:53, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

Reviewer: SnowyRiver28 (talk · contribs) 06:37, 19 September 2026 (UTC)

Thank you! — Very Polite Person (talk/contribs) 15:28, 19 September 2026 (UTC)

Good Article review progress box

Criteria: 1a. prose () 1b. MoS () 2a. ref layout () 2b. cites WP:RS () 2c. no WP:OR () 2d. no WP:CV () 3a. broadness () 3b. focus () 4. neutral () 5. stable () 6a. free or tagged images () 6b. pics relevant () Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked are unassessed

Lead

• Reports of luminous phenomena associated with earthquakes go back to ancient historical accounts, while described photographic examples came from the 1960s Matsushiro earthquake swarm in Japan. This reads a bit strangely to me, perhaps the 'described photographic examples' part could be rephrased? SnowyRiver28 (talk) 04:57, 21 September 2026 (UTC)

  All set: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Earthquake_light&diff=1376078147&oldid=1376077062 — Very Polite Person (talk/contribs) 23:10, 21 September 2026 (UTC)

• Proposed explanations have included piezoelectricity, electrokinetic effects, triboelectric or fracture-electrification mechanisms, and rock-stress ionization models; other reported lights have been attributed to non-seismic causes such as lightning, arcing power lines, or power-grid disturbances. This is a big sentence, suggest swapping the semicolon for a period. SnowyRiver28 (talk) 04:57, 21 September 2026 (UTC)

  All set: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Earthquake_light&diff=1376078836&oldid=1376078147 — Very Polite Person (talk/contribs) 23:16, 21 September 2026 (UTC)

History

• Reports of lights before earthquakes have also included... Would phrasing this as "lights preceding earthquakes" or similar work better? At first read it's a bit confusing. SnowyRiver28 (talk) 11:23, 21 September 2026 (UTC)

  All set: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Earthquake_light&diff=1376077062&oldid=1376029257 — Very Polite Person (talk/contribs) 22:58, 21 September 2026 (UTC)

• Acronym USGS should be written out and wikilinked per MOS:ACRONYM. SnowyRiver28 (talk) 11:23, 21 September 2026 (UTC)

  All set: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Earthquake_light&diff=1376024804&oldid=1376024495 — Very Polite Person (talk/contribs) 15:26, 21 September 2026 (UTC)

• There's a HTML comment hiding in the wikicode. Not a big issue but worth cleaning up if it's no longer needed? SnowyRiver28 (talk) 11:23, 21 September 2026 (UTC)

  All set: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Earthquake_light&diff=1376024995&oldid=1376024804 — Very Polite Person (talk/contribs) 15:27, 21 September 2026 (UTC)

Reported details

• The China Earthquake Networks Center, in public education material on earthquake macro-precursors, stating that earth... Should be "stated". SnowyRiver28 (talk) 11:23, 21 September 2026 (UTC)
• Same as above with JMA. SnowyRiver28 (talk) 11:23, 21 September 2026 (UTC)

  All set for both - https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Earthquake_light&diff=1376023512&oldid=1376001496 — Very Polite Person (talk/contribs) 15:15, 21 September 2026 (UTC)

References

• There's a commented out reference Shinbrot 2014. Similar to above, worth removing if it's not necessary. SnowyRiver28 (talk) 11:23, 21 September 2026 (UTC)

  All set - https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Earthquake_light&diff=1376023757&oldid=1376023512 — Very Polite Person (talk/contribs) 15:17, 21 September 2026 (UTC)

• References Lira Mulas EQL 2021 and Lira AG 2021 seem to be the same paper. They should be condensed to the one reference. SnowyRiver28 (talk) 11:23, 21 September 2026 (UTC)

  All set: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Earthquake_light&diff=1376079602&oldid=1376078836 — Very Polite Person (talk/contribs) 23:22, 21 September 2026 (UTC)

• A couple of the references have a 'doi-broken' parameter. SnowyRiver28 (talk) 11:23, 21 September 2026 (UTC)

  I ran Link Dispenser over the article here: https://link-dispenser.toolforge.org/analysis/b3100eaf-0675-4873-84f5-8018675a7238

  The DOIs appear to resolve through doi.org, although some aren't found in Crossref. I've never had this come up before, so I'm not sure what's the expectation (DOI resolution isn't one of the allowed WP:GAN requirements, so new to me!). — Very Polite Person (talk/contribs) 23:47, 21 September 2026 (UTC)

  Yeah similar to the other points I made this is a non-blocking issue just something I thought I'd point out while we're here, also new to me. SnowyRiver28 (talk) 00:14, 22 September 2026 (UTC)

  Very good catch that our tool cross checks between two, but then the bot reports one failing if the other works. Either/or should be sufficient I'd imagine. Hm... good side puzzle outside the GAN, I'll see if I can find something. — Very Polite Person (talk/contribs) 00:35, 22 September 2026 (UTC)

• Reference spot check completed on multiple citations and passed. Article is strongly-referenced and well-cited. SnowyRiver28 (talk) 11:23, 21 September 2026 (UTC)

Images

• All images are appropriately licensed and good to go. Some are missing alt text, though this isn't required for GA so all good here. SnowyRiver28 (talk) 11:23, 21 September 2026 (UTC)

  Very good idea all the same and added, as they'll need to be for future WP:FAC and for basic decency/accessibility... https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Earthquake_light&diff=1376024495&oldid=1376023757 — Very Polite Person (talk/contribs) 15:23, 21 September 2026 (UTC)

Comments

This is a strong and well-written article that is largely ready for GA, thanks so much Very Polite Person for your work on this, absolutely fascinating topic too. SnowyRiver28 (talk) 11:23, 21 September 2026 (UTC)

Thank you! This was a very challenging one to put together. — Very Polite Person (talk/contribs) 23:50, 21 September 2026 (UTC)

All your changes look good to me so I reckon this is all set to go. Thanks again for your efforts here. SnowyRiver28 (talk) 11:26, 22 September 2026 (UTC)

I've made a few notes above mainly on minor things to have a look at. Everything is up for discussion so feel free to reply if you disagree or have other thoughts. SnowyRiver28 (talk) 11:23, 21 September 2026 (UTC)

Just got through about all of it, and one question back to you above. I agree with all of it - fresh eyes always catch the missed wart. — Very Polite Person (talk/contribs) 23:51, 21 September 2026 (UTC)

They're not required for GA status so more out of curiosity but are there any images of the appropriate license that could be added to the article? Perhaps the recordings or photographs mentioned within? Non-blocking issue just something I thought I'd raise. SnowyRiver28 (talk) 11:23, 21 September 2026 (UTC)

I've still not found anything, and there's this over on Commons, but it feels a bit sketchy (even if the quirks of copyright between Peru and USA make it legal to use) and not quite WP:GA level: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:2007_Lima_PUCP_CCTV.webm - I'd say that's a tapped out well for now. — Very Polite Person (talk/contribs) 23:58, 21 September 2026 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.