Talk:1995 Gulf of Aqaba earthquake
This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
1995 Gulf of Aqaba 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. | ||||||||||
| ||||||||||
A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on August 14, 2012. The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that the 1995 Gulf of Aqaba earthquake apparently triggered an earthquake swarm 500 kilometers (310 mi) from its epicenter? |
Requested move
edit- The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the move request was: moved. Jenks24 (talk) 09:36, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
1995 Egypt earthquake → 1995 Gulf of Aqaba earthquake –
The earthquake occurred in the Gulf of Aqaba and damage and deaths were reported in Saudi Arabia and Egypt. The heaviest damage occurred in Egypt (eight buildings collapsed in Cairo) with the heaviest in Nuweiba, Egypt. Damage also occurred in the resort towns in Aqaba, Jordan and Eilat, Israel, so this really was a regional event that affected a handful of countries (Egypt, Israel, Jordan, and Saudi Arabia). Renaming this from the generic "Egypt earthquake" to "Gulf of Aqaba" earthquake would help define the regional nature of the event.
This earthquake has been studied quite a bit and there are an unusually high number of sources available for it. I looked through these sources and have listed how the event is referred to. I think the next best option would be the 1995 Nuweiba earthquake as that was the town that was closest to the epicenter and experienced a large portion of damage and deaths (a four story hotel resort collapsed there).
I have an expanded version of the article in my user space that I would like to post (shooting for a DYK) after the name gets sorted through. Dawnseeker2000 03:39, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
Survey
edit- Support - A move to either of the first two would be preferable to the existing name. Mikenorton (talk) 15:46, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
GA Review
editGA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
- This review is transcluded from Talk:1995 Gulf of Aqaba earthquake/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Dr. Blofeld (talk · contribs) 11:14, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
- Infobox map
Can you add Eilat and Nuweiba cities to the map, I think it would be useful given what is said in the text. Done (I thought the area near the bullseye would be too crowded with those cities marked, but it actually looks fine) Dawnseeker2000 18:43, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
- Tectonic setting
- "Although there is much that is not known about the DST, it is accepted that its transform motion began around 12—18 million years ago" -citation needed.
- The sentence, and the bulk of that paragraph, is based on ref #2. The article, for the most part, uses paragraph citations. In the case of this paragraph (and that sentence), everything up to and including the sentence "Geologist A. M. Quennell, who is credited with first recognizing the movement along the fault in 1958, estimated the total displacement to be 107 kilometers (66 mi) while a similar study that included more regional influences resulted in an estimated slip of 100 kilometers" is covered by ref #2 and the last sentence is covered by ref #6. Two of the article's eleven paragraphs have multiple citations, the rest are based one reference only and I've followed that approach throughout. Is it OK to use the "for verification, please see the nearest ref" style? Dawnseeker2000 18:43, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
- That's OK, but generally I like facts to be directly sourced. Given that some paragraphs use multiple sources on wikipedia generally I find the reference at end of paragraph to not really help readers verify the information given in sentences before it, it isn't always obvious to check the bottom citation for a different sentence. And I think making it as easy as possible for any reader to instantly verify given facts is very important on wikipedia. But in fairness most of the sentences in the article are not figures and many of them don't need citations. ♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 21:10, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
- The sentence, and the bulk of that paragraph, is based on ref #2. The article, for the most part, uses paragraph citations. In the case of this paragraph (and that sentence), everything up to and including the sentence "Geologist A. M. Quennell, who is credited with first recognizing the movement along the fault in 1958, estimated the total displacement to be 107 kilometers (66 mi) while a similar study that included more regional influences resulted in an estimated slip of 100 kilometers" is covered by ref #2 and the last sentence is covered by ref #6. Two of the article's eleven paragraphs have multiple citations, the rest are based one reference only and I've followed that approach throughout. Is it OK to use the "for verification, please see the nearest ref" style? Dawnseeker2000 18:43, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
- Stress
- "The average background seismicity was .5 to 1 events per day preceding November 22, and during the swarm 21 small earthquakes with a peak magnitude of (Md = 3.7) were recorded in three and a half hours." -citation needed to verify data.
- This whole paragraph is based on ref #10. Will wait on an answer from the question above. Dawnseeker2000 19:16, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
- Damage
- Delink Saudi Arabia Done Dawnseeker2000 18:43, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
- Past events
- "The seismologists who work with historical events gather macroseismic data from written records from cities that may not have been anywhere near the epicentral area. " Seems a bit generalized, I'd rather you documented what happened specific to this case in the past tense.
- I've reread the paragraph and the source material to get back up to speed (this was written last summer). That whole paragraph summarizes page 1027 (section "Background Seismicity of the Gulf of Aqaba") is explaining the difficulty seismologists have reconstructing earthquake history in that area due to a low population. The text wanders from the specifics of the 1995 event to give a broader perspective of how the work there presents challenges. It's a "History" section of sorts and they're talking about historical events and I included this in the article to give the reader that understanding. Dawnseeker2000 20:02, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
- "but a primary characteristic of the activity there are the multiple sequences of earthquake swarms." Reword as "but a primary characteristic of the activity is that there are multiple sequences of earthquake swarms." Done (Much better) Dawnseeker2000 18:47, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
- Aftermath
- Can you add an actual external coordinate link like in Llantwit Major landmarks for near 28°35' N and 29°05' N ?
- This is a range of latitude and not a full coordinate system, so unable to add even a {{coord}} to the article, let alone the {{GeoGroup}} template. I did find that sentence a bit awkward as I was reading it and have rearranged it a bit. Dawnseeker2000 19:15, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
My bad, I missed that and read it as full coordinates.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 21:10, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria
- Is it reasonably well written?
- A. Prose quality:
- B. MoS compliance:
- Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
- A. References to sources:
- B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
- C. No original research:
- Is it broad in its coverage?
- A. Major aspects:
- B. Focused:
- Is it neutral?
- Fair representation without bias:
- Is it stable?
- No edit wars, etc:
- 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:
- Overall:
- Pass or Fail:
As sound as a pound, good job.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 21:20, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks much! Dawnseeker2000 21:49, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
External links modified
editHello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on 1995 Gulf of Aqaba 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:
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110608020600/http://earthquake.usgs.gov/earthquakes/eqarchives/significant/sig_1995.php to http://earthquake.usgs.gov/earthquakes/eqarchives/significant/sig_1995.php
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: 5 June 2024).
- 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) 18:17, 22 May 2017 (UTC)