Talk:2011 Christchurch earthquake
|This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the 2011 Christchurch earthquake article.|
|This talk page is automatically archived by MiszaBot I. Any threads with no replies in 4 months may be automatically moved. Sections without timestamps are not archived.|
|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
|A news item involving 2011 Christchurch earthquake was featured on Wikipedia's main page in the In the news section on 22 February 2011.|
|This article uses New Zealand English dialect and spelling (colour, realise, analyse), and some terms used in it may be different or absent from Australian, Indian, and other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.|
|A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day... section on February 22, 2013.|
Poorly written article
This article is poorly written, especially in the intro.
The intro sentence contains a lot of technical information, capital letters, parentheses, detail about magnitude, etc, but does not mention that 184 people were killed. This is poor writing technique. The intro should use simple language to convey the gist of the article without being too technical. Technical information should come later.
I am a professional editor and would re-write the article myself, but unfortunately I do not have time at the moment. Perhaps somebody else could have a crack? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.127.116.11 (talk) 00:26, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
Nevermind. I looked up your IP address and it traced back to Malaysia. If you were from New Zealand I would have had a good go at you as I dislike, maybe even go so far to hate, all New Zealand media. As for the article (and it doesn't in this present time fit your description, so someone must have re-typed it), you really shouldn't have expected it to be professional before you read it for the first time... certainly not on par with your professional editing. Reality check, this is Wikipedia, articles can be created and edited by anyone and everyone. -- 18.104.22.168 (talk) 23:22, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
This article is slightly biased and misses many contributions from other organization's in Christchurch. It also misses many of the critical failures to the response that have come out during various enquiries such as the Fire Service Review and Royal Commission Report. The single quote about it being the best run disaster etc. was probably a polite pandering, as the event had major short comings in both preparation and response. Brenthollow (talk) 00:10, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
Article fails to mention that search was briefly abandoned on CTV Building
I dunno if its already in the article or not but I remember correctly on the news that they abandoned their search at the CTV Building briefly after they could not find anymore survivors? This prompted parents/families of the victims to pressure New Zealand rescue teams to not abandon their search. There was this lady from the Philippines who even texted her mom saying that she was buried but she eventually died when they recovered her body days/weeks later. Shouldn't things like this be mentioned in the article as well? Bleubeatle (talk) 19:58, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
- If you can find newspaper reporting on this, then I believe this detail should be added to the CTV Building article. Schwede66 20:03, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
I propose a piece be added under Fundraising and charity events that notes the Exclusive Brethren (an international religious sect) had apparently set up the first tent in the aftermath of the February 22nd, 2011 earthquake. -- 22.214.171.124 (talk) 23:29, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
- That is hardly a notable point. It sound more like an attempt at promotion of the Exclusive Brethren themselves. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 04:14, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
I agree, the EB should be mentioned as they provided a great deal of food to the Emergency Workers in the time we were stationed in Lattimer square. They did so without prophesizing or fuss and were greatly appreciated. I am not EB by the way. :) Brenthollow (talk) 00:03, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
Quote: The cancellation required an amendment to the Statistics Act 1975, which legally requires a census to be taken in 2011, and a revocation by The Queen.
Query: Why was the Queen's involvement necessary? Why wasn't it enough to amend the Act in Parliament and have the Governor-General give Royal Assent to it, just like every other piece of legislation? -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ [your turn] 08:33, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
- I believe the Queen wasn't directly involved. The revocation was done by the Governor-General, and he was not revoking the legislation (as our text might suggest), but his earlier proclamation that the Census would be held on 8 March 2011. I've revised the text to make this clearer. --Avenue (talk) 12:44, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
In the article, three different casualty figures are used. In the intro and infobox, it's 185; in section 3.1 Casualties it's 177 plus 4 ; and in the table just underneath it's given as 176.
For consistency, all figures should match the official Police/Government total of 185 cited on the NZ Police website (http://www.police.govt.nz/list-deceased) - and if they don't, for whatever reason, then any discrepancy in any given total should be clearly noted and explained in situ.