Talk:1995 Neftegorsk earthquake

Earthquakes High‑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 articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Russia: History / Physical geography Mid‑importance

	Russia portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Russia, a WikiProject dedicated to coverage of Russia on Wikipedia. To participate: Feel free to edit the article attached to this page, join up at the project page, or contribute to the project discussion.RussiaWikipedia:WikiProject RussiaTemplate:WikiProject RussiaRussia articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the history of Russia task force.
	This article is supported by the physical geography of Russia task force.

Dead link[edit]

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

http://pdm.medicine.wisc.edu/johnson.htm
- In 1995 Neftegorsk earthquake on 2011-05-25 06:15:47, 404 Not Found
- In 1995 Neftegorsk earthquake on 2011-06-08 03:13:30, 404 Not Found

--JeffGBot (talk) 03:13, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Upgrade, including change of citation style[edit]

I have some new templates for citing earthquake sources ({{Cite isc}}, {{Cite anss}}), and propose to try them out here. Implicit in this is change of citation style from "named-refs" to short-cites ("shortened citations"). Any objections? ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 20:04, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There being no objections, I boldly proceeded. Found more sources, replaced some dead sources, and added two paragraphs on the scientific aspects. Also more detail on why this quake was so deadly. (It turns out this quake is actually quite interesting, despite the complete non-mention of such details in the previous version.) I have not fixed all of the deficiencies, as 1) that was not my intent, and 2) they are a reminder of where all earthquake articles need improvement. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:09, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]