Talk:April 2011 Miyagi earthquake

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Former good article nomineeApril 2011 Miyagi earthquake was a Geography and places good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
April 22, 2011Good article nomineeNot listed

Quake[edit]

As this earthquake is an aftershock of the March 11 earthquake I don't think it should have a page on it's own, especially since that, even if it's the stronger aftershock until now, it's not the only M>7 aftershock of this earthquake. Luinil (talk) 02:38, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You might well be right. I don't know much about quakes. It might end up as a redirect to the main quake. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 02:48, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The 2011 Miaygi earthquake is the 11 March quake. That quake occurred off Miyagi. Some news sources even called it the Miaygi quake, this article is therefore badly named. 65.93.12.101 (talk) 06:34, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
April 2011 Tōhoku earthquake has already been merged and redirected to the main article. 65.93.12.101 (talk) 06:39, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, this should be a redirect for now at least. We could reconsider if its coverage gets so extensive it would have undue weight there. --Avenue (talk) 10:01, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Of course. I'm sorry I stubbed it in the first place. I didn't know. I hate to see all this fuss and wasted keystrokes. Can't we just dump it there now using Template:Copied? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 10:13, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Say the word and I'll just do it. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 10:15, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
We now also have 2011 April Tōhoku earthquake, which needs redirecting as well - I'll fix that one. Mikenorton (talk) 10:50, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm just starting a work cycle and haven't a second to spare. So please feel free to Template:Copied it to the main article, or wait until after the weekend, and I'll do it. Cheers Anna Frodesiak (talk) 13:37, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Also, I don't know whether it goes in List of foreshocks and aftershocks of the 2011 Tōhoku earthquake and tsunami or the main article or both. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 13:40, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Should we move this whole thread to the discussion area below? After all, it's about the exact same thing. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 10:47, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, I think this quake was significant enough to stand on its own, aftershock or not. I'm not too familiar with the consensus for quake articles, but I've expanded the article and I think it's pretty solid now. Besides, the quake got much more media attention than the other aftershocks, and had a much larger impact and degree of concern. I agree that the current article title is not the best choice, however.★ Auree (talk) 00:54, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever gets decided regarding merge/name, will likely also apply to 2011 Fukushima earthquake, another aftershock stub. I made it only because there needs to be some place to put the information about it until it is decided where it will go.

Once again, are there any objections to pasting this whole thread to the discussion area below? After all, these are two concurrent discussions about the same thing. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 09:54, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: moved. The original title was changed to a redirect to 2011 Tōhoku earthquake and tsunami as well. (non-admin closure) Jenks24 (talk) 12:36, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]


2011 Miyagi earthquake → April 2011 Miyagi earthquake — The 2011 Tōhoku earthquake has been referred to in some sources as the Miyagi quake, so this article is badly named, since it is not the most significant Miyagi quake of 2011. The current title should redirect to 2011 Tōhoku earthquake and tsunami. 65.93.12.101 (talk) 06:34, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Survey[edit]

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's policy on article titles.

Discussion[edit]

Any additional comments:

Whatever gets decided regarding merge/name, will likely also apply to 2011 Fukushima earthquake, another aftershock stub. I made it only because there needs to be some place to put the information about it until it is decided where it will go.

Once again, are there any objections to pasting the whole thread above to this discussion area here? After all, these are two concurrent discussions about the same thing. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 09:54, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That (2011 Fukushima) article was merged to the list of aftershocks. Still, regardless of if this article is merged or not, the current title should redirect to the main article (2011 Sendai/Tohoku) since this name is used for that quake as well. 65.93.12.101 (talk) 23:02, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
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. No further edits should be made to this section.

GA Review[edit]

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

Reviewer: Nanobear (talk) 19:50, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
    The article is reasonably well-written, but there are a lot of things that could be improved, for example in the lead "No major damage was reported" -> "there was no major damage" (if true). Enough time should have passed to know if there was major damage or not. Also the prose should be changed to past form: "are confirmed dead" -> "were confirmed dead", etc (it's no longer a current event). "All warnings and alerts were canceled within 90 minutes, however" should probably be changed to something like "Within 90 minutes, all warnings were canceled, and no tsunami occurred" (if true; I think it's much more important whether a tsunami did arrive or not than the cancellation of warnings). I think the "earthquake" and "effects" chapters should be split into subchapters - there is currently too much diverse information in these chapters for a good flow. The subchapter addition should be combined with expansion, see below.
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
    It's a quite short article, I think too short for GA. Some suggestions for expansion: 1) more specific information about the damage, 2) where exactly and how the other 3 victims died, 3) where were the 5 coal plants located, 4) reactions by officials and scientists to the quake, etc.
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:
  6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
    There is only one image (the map). I think we should at least have relevant photograph, for example of the damage done by the quake (although it can be difficult the separate the aftershock damage from the main quake damage).
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:
    Currently the article does cover the main facts, but just doesn't seem to have enough information yet for a GA. It's easy think of material that could be added and should reasonably be in the article. The article also definitely needs a relevant photograph (I think it should be possible to get one).

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on April 2011 Miyagi 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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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) 17:46, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on April 2011 Miyagi 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) 05:04, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:April_2011_Miyagi_earthquake&oldid=1204916945"