Talk:June 2011 Christchurch earthquake

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Good articleJune 2011 Christchurch 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
August 27, 2011Good article nomineeListed
On this day...A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on June 13, 2023.

Deletion[edit]

I see no reason why this page needs to be deleted as it meets the standard of a wikipedia article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.55.121.34 (talk) 00:20, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Magnitude[edit]

There's been some edit conflict going on regarding the magnitude of the earthquake. The USGS, arguably one of the most reliable seismological centres in the world, lists this as a magnitude 6.0 event on the Moment magnitude scale (Mw). GeoNet, however, lists an upgraded magnitude of 6.3 on the Richter magnitude scale (ML). There is a subtle difference between the two, and the magnitude has been incorrectly updated to Mw 6.3. Since the USGS is by far a more notable source for earthquake data, and is consensually preferred as a main source by WP:QUAKE, I believe the magnitude given by the USGS should be used, while the magnitude from GeoNet (and other agencies) could be added as an additional note. ★ Auree talk

I feel that the GNS Science upgraded should be the main source for the magnitude. The USGS listing is only a computer generated estimate at the time of the earthquake. The upgraded GNS Science reading was calculated by seismologists from the readings of various seismographs located in the actual area. Therefore it is clear that the GNS Science reading would be the more accurate and reliable of the two. FEAR6655 —Preceding undated comment added 03:06, 14 June 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Sorry but GeoNet is the one which should be used as it is NZ based and is just as reliable as the USGS. Also NZ isn't a US state or territory and WP:QUAKE is not a policy or guideline. Bidgee (talk) 03:08, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough, but since GeoNet uses the Richter scale, it should also be updated to ML, not Mw. ★ Auree talk 03:15, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've just done that, as I've had to do with the other quakes (since people were misusing Mw for ML data). Bidgee (talk) 03:17, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I now see 3 separate magnitudes (5.5, 5.6 and 5.7) with mixed magnitude scales for the weaker preceding earthquake throughout the article. I'm not sure what it's supposed be, but I think it was upgraded to magnitude 5.7 ML ★ Auree talk 03:23, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Never mind, it's supposed to read as 5.6 ML. ★ Auree talk 03:23, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review[edit]

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

Reviewer: ♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:42, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I will begin review on 24th Aug. Promise!♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:07, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lead
  • "It was centred at a depth of 6.0 km (4 mi), about 13 km (8 mi) from Christchurch, which had previously been devastated by a February 2011 magnitude 6.3 ML aftershock of the major 2010 Canterbury earthquake. " An aftershock months after the 2010 earthquake? Does that qualifiy as an aftershock or separate event?
I've added a ref for Feb being regarded as an aftershock. The main article on the Feb quake explains this in more detail; geologically it was an aftershock, but for insurance purposes it was considered a new earthquake.-gadfium 09:37, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Background
  • "The largest on record was a magnitude 8.2 ML major earthquake that occurred on 23 January 1855 near the Wairarapa plains of the North Island." Citation needed.
I've added a ref.-gadfium 09:37, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The magnitude 7.1 Mw event of 4 September 2010 was by far the strongest earthquake recorded in the Canterbury Region of the island." Citation needed.
Damage evaluation
  • "A three-month reconstruction project was set to be initiated in October 2011" Is rather than was?
    • Not too sure. How about "was scheduled to begin in October 2011"? ★ Auree talk 04:06, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Lyttelton Port, a major harbour in the region, suffered additional damage from the tremors and was to perform full engineering assessments" "was to perform full engineering assessments" is a little awkward. Maybe is due to undergo full engineering assessments or underwent full engineering assessments. Perform is not the right word I think.
    • Changed to "opted to initiate full engineering assessments" ★ Auree talk 04:06, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relief efforts
  • NZ$285,000 and the two Australian dollar figures need US dollar conversions like above.
    • Done. Sorry about the delayed replies and thanks for reviewing! ★ Auree talk 04:06, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]


GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

  1. Is it reasonably well written?
    A. Prose quality:
    B. MoS compliance:
  2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
    A. References to sources:
    B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
    C. No original research:
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. Major aspects:
    B. Focused:
  4. Is it neutral?
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. Is it stable?
    No edit wars, etc:
  6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
    A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
    B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:

I think this just about meets requirements. In my opinion the prose needs a lot of work but is sufficient for now. I'd imagine as time goes on more information in books and such will become available.♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:07, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on June 2011 Christchurch 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) 21:05, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:June_2011_Christchurch_earthquake&oldid=1207878864"