This article is within the scope of WikiProject Earthquakes, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
earthquakes,
seismology,
plate tectonics, and related subjects 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.EarthquakesWikipedia:WikiProject EarthquakesTemplate:WikiProject EarthquakesWikiProject Earthquakes articles
This article is within the scope of 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, participate in
relevant discussions, and see
lists of open tasks. Current time in Japan: 10:57, June 17, 2024 (
JST,
Reiwa 6) (Refresh)JapanWikipedia:WikiProject JapanTemplate:WikiProject JapanJapan-related articles
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.Disaster managementWikipedia:WikiProject Disaster managementTemplate:WikiProject Disaster managementDisaster management articles
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
P.S. Be forewarned that my initial reaction, without really looking at the article is that it can not be complete given the article length and the event recency. Look around at other earthquake articles to see what types of things might be desirable to add.--
TonyTheTiger (
T/
C/
BIO/
WP:CHICAGO/
WP:FOUR) 17:14, 25 April 2011 (UTC)reply
Thanks for reviewing! I've looked around at all the major sources on earthquakes (including Japanese ones), as well as multiple smaller ones. I can honestly say that what is written in the article is all there is to say about this quake. It wasn't that significant of a quake, but the impact is notable. Geologically, the article is complete; impact and aftermath-wise, there's not much else to write. I have based the article off of other smaller earthquake articles, such as
this one or
this one. As you can see, compared to the other quakes the earthquake/geological info in the Fukushima quake article is pretty much complete; they were all relatively moderate earthquakes, with not much to write about geologically. The Fukushima quake resulted in limited damage, and most reports (both Japanese and English) cover the same occurrences. The Pichilemu and Chino Hills articles include an aftershock section, which is understandable considering the magnitude and/or amount of shocks reported. Of the 11 shocks registered, the strongest for the Fukushima quake registered at a magnitude of 5.5, which is very common in Japan, and with no impact reported this shuts off the possibility for a separate aftershock section. Then, there's the reaction/response section, which I could include, but it'd be quite small. Either way, I'll try to accumulate some information for this, and I'll add that to the article. The lack of tsunami waves also results in much less to write about, since tsunamis add a lot of information to earthquake articles. I hope this makes enough sense
★ Auree (
talk) 17:45, 25 April 2011 (UTC)reply
Technically, this wasn't a major aftershock (major is described as magnitude 7.0+), but I did do something of the sort.
★ Auree (
talk) 20:18, 27 April 2011 (UTC)reply
You might want to note that this was the largest aftershock with a land-based epicenter to the LEAD.--
TonyTheTiger (
T/
C/
BIO/
WP:CHICAGO/
WP:FOUR) 00:15, 28 April 2011 (UTC)reply
I know it's habitual to wikilink magnitude in its first occurrence in the main body, as well as in the first lede sentence. I removed the second link, as well as two other redundant wikilinks.
★ Auree (
talk) 23:57, 27 April 2011 (UTC)reply
Nope. Just updated data and newer estimates, I guess. I changed it to "but was later revised," hoping that sounds better.
★ Auree (
talk) 20:18, 27 April 2011 (UTC)reply
Why does only one of the three 7.0 aftershocks have an article. (probably should be redlinks in both templates that should be on this page.--
TonyTheTiger (
T/
C/
BIO/
WP:CHICAGO/
WP:FOUR) 20:54, 26 April 2011 (UTC)reply
Can't help you there on that one. I do know that only this quake and the
Miyagi quake, which I also wrote, were the only aftershocks with a notable impact and casualties.
★ Auree (
talk) 20:18, 27 April 2011 (UTC)reply
Do you know enough to put this aftershock in the context of the three 7.0s. I.e., when and where were all of the three 7.0s?
All three of the magnitude 7.0+ aftershocks occurred undersea, with only one of them (the Miyagi quake) directly affecting land. I'm not sure about the relevance more elaboration on the other aftershocks would hold to this article, though; I'd consider it unnecessary digression from the main subject.
★ Auree (
talk) 23:57, 27 April 2011 (UTC)reply
You have already set up the fact that there where non-land aftershocks by saying it was the 2nd largest to affect land. You could have a statement in the main body saying just what you said above. "All three of the magnitude 7.0+ aftershocks occurred undersea, with only one of them (the Miyagi quake) directly affecting land." Follow that with text saying this was the largest, however, that had an epicenter on land. That is VERY encyclopedic content.--
TonyTheTiger (
T/
C/
BIO/
WP:CHICAGO/
WP:FOUR) 00:10, 28 April 2011 (UTC)reply
Sorry, I misunderstood at first. Good idea, I'll work something out
★ Auree (
talk) 00:45, 28 April 2011 (UTC)reply
Do we have numbers for "Initially, four people were estimated to be trapped, but officials later reported more victims."
Nope. Sources state that an "unknown number of people were trapped," with the updated amount of victims not reported.
★ Auree (
talk) 20:18, 27 April 2011 (UTC)reply
I'll figure some way out to explain this concisely.
★ Auree (
talk) 20:18, 27 April 2011 (UTC)reply
General comments
Can you tell us how far away Tokyo, the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear plant, and the March earthquake epicenter were from this epicenter.
I'm not sure how relevant this would be. I'll add the Tokyo distance in somewhere, but no guarantees on sources for the other two.
★ Auree (
talk) 20:18, 27 April 2011 (UTC)reply
You have two precise epicenters. You should be able to determine a distance between them. Once you learn how to do that, you should be able to get a price long and lat for the nuclear plant and do the same.--
TonyTheTiger (
T/
C/
BIO/
WP:CHICAGO/
WP:FOUR) 05:03, 28 April 2011 (UTC)reply
Added distances to the main body of the article.
★ Auree (
talk) 12:45, 28 April 2011 (UTC)reply
Do you have a source for the power plant distance. If necessary cite three sources (each location, and maybe a webpage that gives you distances between two points)--
TonyTheTiger (
T/
C/
BIO/
WP:CHICAGO/
WP:FOUR) 14:27, 28 April 2011 (UTC)reply
Added a source for the power plant and quake epicentre coordinates; I think it's alright this way.
★ Auree (
talk) 14:51, 28 April 2011 (UTC)reply
Note the above concern would not be necessary if the main image had a key noting the distance of each ring in miles or KM.--
TonyTheTiger (
T/
C/
BIO/
WP:CHICAGO/
WP:FOUR) 03:54, 27 April 2011 (UTC)reply
Don't want it to get too cluttered in there
★ Auree (
talk) 20:18, 27 April 2011 (UTC)reply
A key describing ring distance or general scale would be very helpful to the reader. It would not be considered clutter.--
TonyTheTiger (
T/
C/
BIO/
WP:CHICAGO/
WP:FOUR) 00:28, 28 April 2011 (UTC)reply
Kind of wish we had more detail on this, but I don't know how much more info is on WP about Japanese train lines.--
TonyTheTiger (
T/
C/
BIO/
WP:CHICAGO/
WP:FOUR) 23:02, 28 April 2011 (UTC)reply
It only includes the duration of the outage, from immediately after the quake (5:06) till 6:15 (within 50 minutes, which is mentioned in the article).
★ Auree (
talk) 20:20, 27 April 2011 (UTC)reply
The refs should not have All Caps in general. Please use normal capitalization.--
TonyTheTiger (
T/
C/
BIO/
WP:CHICAGO/
WP:FOUR) 00:36, 28 April 2011 (UTC)reply
Consider it done.
★ Auree (
talk) 01:12, 28 April 2011 (UTC)reply
I've applied all changes to the best of my ability. Thanks for your suggestions – they were very helpful to the article
★ Auree (
talk) 20:34, 27 April 2011 (UTC)reply
Anything else that needs fixing specifically?
★ Auree (
talk) 18:55, 28 April 2011 (UTC)reply
I feel we have made this article much closer to what
WP:WIAGA instructs and am going to pass this article now.--
TonyTheTiger (
T/
C/
BIO/
WP:CHICAGO/
WP:FOUR) 02:48, 30 April 2011 (UTC)reply
I agree. Thank you for reviewing; I hope to work with you again in the near future.
★ Auree (
talk) 07:36, 30 April 2011 (UTC)reply
I have just modified 2 external links on
April 2011 Fukushima 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: 5 June 2024).
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.
I have just modified 5 external links on
April 2011 Fukushima 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: 5 June 2024).
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.
I have just modified one external link on
April 2011 Fukushima 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: 5 June 2024).
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.