- 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
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
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
- Damage and casualties
link runway.
Do we have numbers for "Initially, four people were estimated to be trapped, but officials later reported more victims."
- Response
- General comments
|
