Talk:April 2011 Fukushima earthquake

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Good articleApril 2011 Fukushima earthquake has been listed as one of the Geography and places 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
DateProcessResult
April 30, 2011Good article nomineeListed
May 16, 2011Good article reassessmentKept
Current status: Good article

GA Review[edit]

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:April 2011 Fukushima earthquake/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 17:11, 25 April 2011 (UTC) I will get to this in the next couple of days.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 17:11, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
P.S. Be forewarned that my initial reaction, without really looking at the article is that it can not be complete given the article length and the event recency. Look around at other earthquake articles to see what types of things might be desirable to add.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 17:14, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for reviewing! I've looked around at all the major sources on earthquakes (including Japanese ones), as well as multiple smaller ones. I can honestly say that what is written in the article is all there is to say about this quake. It wasn't that significant of a quake, but the impact is notable. Geologically, the article is complete; impact and aftermath-wise, there's not much else to write. I have based the article off of other smaller earthquake articles, such as this one or this one. As you can see, compared to the other quakes the earthquake/geological info in the Fukushima quake article is pretty much complete; they were all relatively moderate earthquakes, with not much to write about geologically. The Fukushima quake resulted in limited damage, and most reports (both Japanese and English) cover the same occurrences. The Pichilemu and Chino Hills articles include an aftershock section, which is understandable considering the magnitude and/or amount of shocks reported. Of the 11 shocks registered, the strongest for the Fukushima quake registered at a magnitude of 5.5, which is very common in Japan, and with no impact reported this shuts off the possibility for a separate aftershock section. Then, there's the reaction/response section, which I could include, but it'd be quite small. Either way, I'll try to accumulate some information for this, and I'll add that to the article. The lack of tsunami waves also results in much less to write about, since tsunamis add a lot of information to earthquake articles. I hope this makes enough sense ★ Auree (talk) 17:45, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Earthquake
  • Please remove redundant links.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 20:50, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Removed whatever I could remove. ★ Auree (talk) 20:18, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Please recheck. The first two links in the main body are redundant with the WP:LEAD.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 23:14, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • I know it's habitual to wikilink magnitude in its first occurrence in the main body, as well as in the first lede sentence. I removed the second link, as well as two other redundant wikilinks. ★ Auree (talk) 23:57, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is there an explanation for the lowering from 7.1 to 6.6?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 20:54, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Nope. Just updated data and newer estimates, I guess. I changed it to "but was later revised," hoping that sounds better. ★ Auree (talk) 20:18, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why does only one of the three 7.0 aftershocks have an article. (probably should be redlinks in both templates that should be on this page.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 20:54, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Can't help you there on that one. I do know that only this quake and the Miyagi quake, which I also wrote, were the only aftershocks with a notable impact and casualties. ★ Auree (talk) 20:18, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Do you know enough to put this aftershock in the context of the three 7.0s. I.e., when and where were all of the three 7.0s?
        • All three of the magnitude 7.0+ aftershocks occurred undersea, with only one of them (the Miyagi quake) directly affecting land. I'm not sure about the relevance more elaboration on the other aftershocks would hold to this article, though; I'd consider it unnecessary digression from the main subject. ★ Auree (talk) 23:57, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
          • You have already set up the fact that there where non-land aftershocks by saying it was the 2nd largest to affect land. You could have a statement in the main body saying just what you said above. "All three of the magnitude 7.0+ aftershocks occurred undersea, with only one of them (the Miyagi quake) directly affecting land." Follow that with text saying this was the largest, however, that had an epicenter on land. That is VERY encyclopedic content.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 00:10, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
            • Sorry, I misunderstood at first. Good idea, I'll work something out ★ Auree (talk) 00:45, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Damage and casualties
  • link runway.
  • Do we have numbers for "Initially, four people were estimated to be trapped, but officials later reported more victims."
    • Nope. Sources state that an "unknown number of people were trapped," with the updated amount of victims not reported. ★ Auree (talk) 20:18, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Response
General comments
  • Can you tell us how far away Tokyo, the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear plant, and the March earthquake epicenter were from this epicenter.
    • I'm not sure how relevant this would be. I'll add the Tokyo distance in somewhere, but no guarantees on sources for the other two. ★ Auree (talk) 20:18, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • You have two precise epicenters. You should be able to determine a distance between them. Once you learn how to do that, you should be able to get a price long and lat for the nuclear plant and do the same.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 05:03, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • Added distances to the main body of the article. ★ Auree (talk) 12:45, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
          • Do you have a source for the power plant distance. If necessary cite three sources (each location, and maybe a webpage that gives you distances between two points)--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 14:27, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
            • Added a source for the power plant and quake epicentre coordinates; I think it's alright this way. ★ Auree (talk) 14:51, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note the above concern would not be necessary if the main image had a key noting the distance of each ring in miles or KM.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 03:54, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • See if WP has articles on the specific train lines that were halted, especially the one mentioned here that sounds like a major one.
  • This one has precise times of power outages.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 04:15, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The refs should not have All Caps in general. Please use normal capitalization.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 00:36, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've applied all changes to the best of my ability. Thanks for your suggestions – they were very helpful to the article ★ Auree (talk) 20:34, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Anything else that needs fixing specifically? ★ Auree (talk) 18:55, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I feel we have made this article much closer to what WP:WIAGA instructs and am going to pass this article now.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 02:48, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Thank you for reviewing; I hope to work with you again in the near future. ★ Auree (talk) 07:36, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The coordinates for the epicenter of this quake are wrong the real ones are: 38.297°N, 142.372°E Source: http://earthquake.usgs.gov/earthquakes/recenteqsww/Quakes/usc0001xgp.php DrBob127 (talk) Sorry, I take that back ... ignore me DrBob127 (talk)

Links[edit]

>> Protests mark Japan earthquake anniversary(Lihaas (talk) 16:17, 8 March 2014 (UTC)).[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on April 2011 Fukushima earthquake. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 17:45, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on April 2011 Fukushima earthquake. 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:

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 06:39, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on April 2011 Fukushima earthquake. 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:

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 05:03, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:April_2011_Fukushima_earthquake&oldid=1204916948"