Talk:April 1923 Kamchatka earthquake and tsunami

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Did you know nomination[edit]

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Desertarun (talk) 07:53, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(
)

Created by Dora the Axe-plorer (talk). Self-nominated at 12:32, 6 June 2021 (UTC).[reply]

-->

General: Article is new enough and long enough

Policy compliance:

  • Adequate sourcing: No - Problem with the surface magnitudes. Infobox gives a 6.8-7.3 range for the magnitude but offers only one source that says 6.8 (USGS) and I can't see the "7.3" value there. The other source cited in lead says 7.2 (NOAA). I have seen a 7.3 magnitude in literature, but it is not cited there - please fix it.
  • Neutral: Yes
  • Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing: Yes

Hook eligibility:

  • Cited: Yes
  • Interesting: Yes
  • Other problems: No - The hook cites the lowest value of the magnitude only (the ones I have seen are 6.8, 7.2, 7.3). Apart from that, the first source was OK by itself; the other two were redundant :)
QPQ: None required.

Overall: 1. Proposing reformulation of the hook (e.g. "although the April 1923 Kamchatka earthquake was at least one magnitude weaker than the (other earthquake) in the same region, it generated...", because the current one only cites the lowest value, and that could be seen as a manipulation/being more favourable to one's scientific theory than the other even as the article does not demonstrate that a majority of scientists cites the 6.8 figure. The article, however, is itself pretty good, so I was wondering for some time whether to put a "minor" instead of "maybe" grade. 2. This is my first DYK review, requesting other's review to confirm my observations. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 22:20, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Szmenderowiecki, thanks for the review and raising the issues.
The Ms  7.3 claim has been cited. As for a the hook, I will add surface wave magnitude because this event has been calculated to be larger, on the order of 8.0+ on other magnitude scales. Three slightly altered hooks to clear-up the 6.8 issue;

Dora the Axe-plorer (talk) 02:26, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

7.3 magnitude claim confirmed cited, thank you. I don't insist on changing the surface wave magnitude parameter for something else, and I don't think I have implied it anywhere. Anyway, the general idea about the case when the usually positive relation between the magnitude and the height of tsunami waves breaks is gorgeous.
Personally, as the closest to my original proposal of rephrasing, I prefer option ALT3. ALT1 does not specify the difference, and it could as well be 0.3 magnitudes lower - the force is 2 times weaker/stronger but a casual reader who gets on the main page does not think logarithmic, so such a difference could be seen as negligible even if it isn't. ALT2 IMHO would require some sort of explanation of why there is such a discrepancy in measurements, for which there is no place. At 194 characters, I believe that ALT3 is now good to go. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 03:09, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Great! Thank you for your time and have a nice day! Dora the Axe-plorer (talk) 03:21, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Wait, one more thing: in each proposal, link please to the definition of the surface wave magnitude and tsunami. Thanks. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 03:28, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Dora the Axe-plorer (talk) 03:46, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:April_1923_Kamchatka_earthquake_and_tsunami&oldid=1204916777"