Talk:Global catastrophe scenarios

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

Effective Altruism Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Effective Altruism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relevant to effective altruism 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.Effective AltruismWikipedia:WikiProject Effective AltruismTemplate:WikiProject Effective AltruismEffective Altruism articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.

Inconsistency

In the "Non-anthropogenic" section, succeeding paragraphs give two very different estimates for the diameter of the Chixulub meteor: the 2d paragraph under "Asteroid impact" says 6 miles (10 km or so), but the 3d paragraph under "Planetary or interstellar collision" says 15 km (about 9 miles). Of course we can only approximate it's actual size but the article should be consistent. ManlyMatt (talk) 12:27, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Issues with grammar and phrasing in asteroid impact section

Hi, I noticed several grammar and writing issues, particularly [this part]:

'In 2024, NASA has been given a 72% chance of hypothetical meteor impact to Earth from a possible 100-320 meter wide asteroid by July 12, 2038. They also estimated a 47% chance of a 1,000 people killed by an asteroid by that date. However, They estimated a 53% chance of 1,000 people to survive a meteor impact, as mitigation is allowed to support them by that date.'

I'm not native and thus may be in the wrong, that's why I'm writing it here rather than editing directly. Here are the specific issues:

1. "A 1,000 people" vs. "1,000 people": The phrase "a 1,000 people" is grammatically incorrect. It should simply be "1,000 people" in both instances for consistency and correctness.

2. "Chance of hypothetical meteor impact": The word "hypothetical" is unnecessary since "chance" already implies uncertainty. It would be clearer to say "72% chance of a meteor impact."

3. Inconsistent and redundant percentages: The 47% chance of 1,000 people being killed and the 53% chance of 1,000 people surviving feel redundant. It would be better to simplify the information to avoid confusion, as the phrasing implies either exactly 1,000 people die or survive.

4. "As mitigation is allowed to support them by that date": This part is unclear and awkward. It would be more readable if rephrased to something like "Mitigation efforts may help reduce casualties by that time."

Suggested revision

Here’s a possible change which I think is clearer and more consistent:

'As of 2024, NASA estimated a 72% chance of a meteor impact from a 100 to 320-meter-wide asteroid by July 12, 2038. They also estimated a 47% chance that 1,000 people could be killed by such an impact, though mitigation efforts may increase survival chances.'

This simplified version fixes the grammatical and is easier to understand, but maybe I missed some important information ?

Would love to hear others' thoughts, Thanks. 109.7.232.202 (talk) 14:55, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]