Talk:Tsunami

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Former good article Tsunami was one of the Natural sciences good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. 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.
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Japan (Rated C-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Japan, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Japan-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. Current time in Japan: 07:51, December 14, 2014 (JST, Heisei 26) (Refresh)
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
Checklist icon
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Geology (Rated B-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon Tsunami is part of WikiProject Geology, an attempt at creating a standardized, informative, comprehensive and easy-to-use geology resource. If you would like to participate, you can choose to edit this article, or visit the project page for more information.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Earthquakes (Rated B-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is part of WikiProject Earthquakes, a project to systematically present information on earthquakes, seismology, plate tectonics, and related subjects. If you would like to participate, you can choose to edit the article attached to this page (see Wikipedia:Contributing FAQ for more information), or join by visiting the project page.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Disaster management (Rated B-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Disaster management, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Disaster management on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale.
 
WikiProject Physics / Fluid Dynamics  (Rated B-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Physics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Physics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
This article is supported by Fluid Dynamics Taskforce.
 
Wikipedia CD Selection
WikiProject icon Tsunami is included in the Wikipedia CD Selection, see Tsunami at Schools Wikipedia. Please maintain high quality standards; if you are an established editor your last version in the article history may be used so please don't leave the article with unresolved issues, and make an extra effort to include free images, because non-free images cannot be used on the DVDs.
 

Tsunami in Mexico in 1932[edit]

Different sources talk about a Tsunami in Cuyutlán town in Mexico, on June 22, 1932. I listed this Tsunami, as "Possible Tsunami" in the section of North America and Caribbean Tsunami, refering a news that also refers newspapers from 1932 and interviews. EliminatorJR eliminated this addition, but considering that it was written under "Possible Tsunami" section, and sourced, it should be kept.

Missing name[edit]

Under Tsunami#Causes, third paragraph:

In the 1950s it was discovered by that larger tsunami than previously believed

Who discovered this?

Geologists working for oil companies and the USGS!

More to the point, some vacationers/fishermen on Lituya Bay in Alaska. Earlier stories of huge waves in the bay were dismissed, even with the high scour evidence. In the 90s, with disaster TV series on the rise, the story that woke up geology took to the air and the super-tsunami was "discovered". SkoreKeep (talk) 22:42, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

GA reassessment[edit]

Tsunami[edit]

Article (edit | edit beta | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · WatchWatch article reassessment page • GAN review not found
This template must be substituted. Replace {{GAR/result}} with {{subst:GAR/result}}. Result: Delist per consensus below. There are numerous statements which need citation per the criteria. Geometry guy 10:13, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

This article does not appear to meet the GA criteria. I'm not familiar with this process, so I'm bringing it here rather than boldly delisting (which I considered). The article is not well written and is woefully undercited. Calliopejen1 (talk) 03:53, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

  • Comment. The article will benefit from in-line citations. The prose needs to be sharpened in places. Majoreditor (talk) 18:28, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Delist. Needs significant improvement in references. Lacking citations in many places where statistics and opinions are given. References need to be properly formatted, with titles, publishers and access dates at the very least. What makes "abelard.org" (the first bullet point in the References section) reliable? The See also and especially the External links sections could use a trim. There are a couple of dead external links, see here. The bold formatting in the Terminology section should be removed. Has had a disputed statement tag in place since November 2008. Dana boomer (talk) 13:36, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Delist A quick look at the reference column says that the article has far too few in-line citations for its size; the frequent [citation needed] are not a good sign. The external links section needs to be about 1/2 its current size. The grammar and style of the article could be made clearer in some instances. Tempo di Valse ♪ 20:03, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Delist Needs to be more comprehensive, and the citation is woeful. ResMar 14:43, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Delist. Layout and sources are not GA-quality. — Levi van Tine (tc) 07:57, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment. The pronunciation "/suːˈnɑːmi/ soo-nah-mee" should be removed from the article. Xintian1 (talk) 00:51, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
  • External links. Possibly use www.sms-tsunami-warning.com in place of www.tsunami-warning.org as web-based tsunami warning system; www.tsunami-warning.org lacks of valuable content.

Scales of intensity and magnitude[edit]

The latest proposal on tsunami intensity scales (ITIS2012) is a 12-grade one, according to and compatible with the earthquake intensity scales and includes impact criteria grouped in six categories: tsunami quantities, and impact on human, mobile objects, infrastructure, environment and structures [1]. A Proposal for a New Integrated Tsunami Intensity Scale (ITIS‐2012)--Navsika (talk) 18:14, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, I've added a short paragraph to the article using that reference. Mikenorton (talk) 07:41, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Further reading[edit]

Those kinds of papers are generally not available on Google Books. Sometimes there's partial papers. The authors probably aren't going to want that material out there for free. Besides, we're not creating a directory here. We're creating an encyclopedia to read. If there's something there in that large collection of papers let's cite it, but creating a list of inaccessible items doesn't seem that good of an idea. I had a large cleanup of the external links section and when I saw the entry of that book in there again I just removed it also (again). Dawnseeker2000 03:02, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Books are available at libraries for those that dont want or can afford to spend 130 stutz just after WP told them to do so. I think it would be better to have more textbooks and less links, the one in question is not only tekkie stuff but gives the whole picture, social science included. In so far I would prefer maximum ten links and maximum ten books. Serten (talk) 03:10, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Typographical Errors[edit]

In the section "Man-made or triggered tsunamis" the word "whether" is misspelled. (An "h" is missing).

Yes check.svg Done Thanks,Dawnseeker2000 00:16, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

  1. ^ E. Lekkas et al 2012