Talk:2005 Qeshm earthquake

Copyediting

Got a request, I'll give it a shot. I'll make some edits directly, but feel free to revert or ask questions about anything.

• I'm sorry, I'm not clear where the epicenter was. "44 km west of Qeshm" looks like it would either put it in the narrow straight between the island and the mainland, or on the mainland. If it was centered in the straight, I think it would be clearer to say that.
• I get the sense that foreign aid from individual countries was also declined; I'll say that explicitly, but fix that if it's wrong.
• I'm not sure what this means: "usually close enough to the surface to cause the damage that is attributed to them."
• I'm not sure what this means, since the epicenter wasn't in or near Oman: "The earthquake was reported in Oman,[1] though no major damage occurred at the epicenter."
• Assuming that "pulses" means Pulse (legume), I changed it to "pulse" and linked it; correct me if I'm wrong.
• "Over 74,151 tins": the number with 5 significant digits suggests that you know precisely how many, but "over" says that you don't know, so this doesn't sound right. Also, it's not clear whether the "over" modifies all the following numbers or just that one; if you want to keep the "over", then you might want to move that item to last in the list.
• I only see one potential problem with the refs: "China Radio International. November 28, 2005." I'm guessing you read this on the web, and if so, we need a "date retrieved".
• Otherwise, looks good. - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 15:44, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Dead link

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

• http://www.iiees.ac.ir/english/bank/gheshm/gheshm_report_e.html
  • In 2005 Qeshm earthquake on 2011-05-25 08:03:54, 404 Not Found
  • In 2005 Qeshm earthquake on 2011-06-12 02:34:05, 404 Not Found

--JeffGBot (talk) 02:34, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Assorted commentary

• Lead's a bit too long given the length of the article
• "13:53 local time" - okay, at this point in the article I have no conception of what "local time" means. Suggest either giving time zone or providing country earlier
• "Research, gathered from reports" - not sure what this means? Do you mean "data gathered from reports" or analysis thereof?
• "very much an extension" - why "very much"?
• Make sure a non-specialist can follow the article. For example, what is "reverse slip faulting" or "Ramkan syncline" in the lead?
• First sentences of Background need to be reworked - first part of sentence 1 should be related to sentence 2, second part of sentence 1 and sentence 3 go together
• Are the Zagros fold and thrust belt and the Zagros Simply Folded Belt the same thing?
• Organization needs some work - it's very difficult to follow at times, and in some cases you're explaining terms or concepts on their second occurrence (ex. Simply Folded Belt)
• Might be helpful to note the location of Qeshm Island on the tectonic plate map
• Use a consistent time format
• Phrasings like "Though...however" are redundant
• What are "sets of oven"? What is "structure reliving"?
• Don't link articles in See also that are included in article text
• Bibliographic info for Nissen et al?
• Publications like China Daily should be italicized. Also, check titling - for example, "The" is part of the official title of The New York Times
• Multi-page PDF needs page number(s). Nikkimaria (talk) 04:34, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Time Inconsistencies

In the Geography section, the time is listed as 1:53 PM and sourced (source #14). In Damage and casualties, the time is listed as 1:52 PM and is sourced (source #5). Not only does stating the time of the incident in two adjacent paragraphs seem a bit redundant to me, but source #5 does not even state that the incident occurred at 1:52. Would there be any objections if I just changed the lead's time to 1:53 and removed the whole phrase about the time it occurred in Damage and casualties because it is the 3rd time is is listed (once in the lead, once in Geography), the source does not state that is the time in which it occurred, and another source states the time? Micromann (talk) 07:46, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

File:Emirates-Towers.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Emirates-Towers.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests December 2011 What should I do? Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 16:32, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Geology section

The geology section is rather difficult to follow at the moment in my view. I'm going to try to separate out the geological setting from what happened in the earthquake and its effects. Mikenorton (talk) 11:43, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

I've created a draft of two sections to replace the existing 'Geology' section. It can be found here. I welcome all comments, particularly those related to the readability of the text. I suggest that it be discussed here, rather than on my userpage. Mikenorton (talk) 12:38, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

I need to take another look at the summary in the lead section, to match the new text. Mikenorton (talk) 17:51, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Epicenter location

Looking through Nissen at al. 2010, page 186 (Table 1), I note that they give a new epicentral location of 26.839 N 55.930 E, about 10 km northeast of the current location in the article. I'm inclined to go with this revised epicenter as it is the result of the most thorough analysis we know about (using body wave modelling). Mikenorton (talk) 16:34, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Seems fine to me. Feel free. ceranthor 17:22, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Done. Mikenorton (talk) 17:49, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Maxim comments

The geology section looks good to me. I've made a few small changes, mostly wording. A review by someone without geological background to check for jargon/accessibility might be useful.

The biggest change I've implement is to disperse the Future threats section. A lot of material was better placed in the general background, and a section on future threats seemed out of place when the 2008 quake was discussed before. I understand this is a major change, so if this was a bad idea, feel free to revert. The current version has two sections of introduction, a section on details of the event, and two sections on the consequences, which I think is a good balance for such an article.

Other suggestions would be to go over the lead, as there have been major changes made to the body of the article. Regarding prose, there are some choppy areas, e.g. "Damage at the eastern wall of an old Portuguese fortress eventually destroyed it. A Portuguese admiral stationed in Qeshm had ordered the fortress to be constructed in 1507." is clunky. Maybe "A Portuguese fortress, built in 1507, sustained heavy damage to its eastern wall, which led to the destruction of the entire structure." The "eventually destroyed it" part is ambiguous -- was the wall or fortress destroyed? An independent copyeditor -- with no geological background -- may be of use. Maxim_(talk) 01:57, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. Your help has been of great use! I think the sections needing improvement will be mentioned at the FAC, but if not, an independent copyeditor can always be found. ceranthor 03:53, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Magnitude

Following on from the epicentre comment above, Nissen at al. 2010, page 186 (Table 1) revised the magnitude of this earthquake to Mw 5.8. Again this is the result of a more thorough analysis of the earthquake using body waves (including a revised velocity structure) and should I think supersede the Mw 6.0 we currently use in the article. Mikenorton (talk) 10:57, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

That's fine. Just be sure to address it everywhere. Do you want to take on the new lead? I'm going to address comments from the FAC. ceranthor 14:06, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

I've had a go at the lead, although it raises again the issue from the review that the Zagros fold and thrust belt doesn't use caps but that Simply Folded Belt does - I think that's because neither simply folded belt nor Simply folded belt would work - it's always used capitalised. Mikenorton (talk) 14:37, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Now a FA in Chinese Wikipedia

I have translated this article to Chinese Wikipedia here and promoted to FA status, and I want to thank User:Ceranthor for his effort to write this amazing article. --Jarodalien (talk) 16:06, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on 2005 Qeshm 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/20090212032820/http://earthquake.usgs.gov/eqcenter/eqinthenews/2005/usfyag/ to https://earthquake.usgs.gov/eqcenter/eqinthenews/2005/usfyag/

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) 15:18, 20 October 2017 (UTC)