Jump to content

Talk:1996 Biak earthquake

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

GA Review

[edit]
This review is transcluded from Talk:1996 Biak earthquake/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: QatarStarsLeague (talk · contribs) 20:57, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Review coming QatarStarsLeague (talk) 20:57, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]


There's no standard on what measurements are included beyond perhaps moment magnitude, but I notice other GA earthquake articles list focal depth and/or surface wave readings---is that available here?
Perhaps a brief primer on the process of oblique subduction is warranted?
The same could be prescribed for mentions of the "slip" centers. Either that or a wikilink as was provided for other, more technical less intuitive geological terms
"which they understood as a signal that a large wave" I'm guessing just discernment, but without an earthquake for a near-century prior, how did the islanders know to seek elevation?
For "See also", you link to the '76 Papuan earthquake---are the same faults involved or just due to the Australian/Pacific plate intersection?
References/images all good. Great article without much else needed. QatarStarsLeague (talk) 21:11, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The depth is included in the infobox, but I could put it somewhere within the article. The surface wave magnitude has not been computed or reported so I will not be able to add that.
I will add to the oblique setting when I get home.
I am not quite sure what you mean by the slip centers, but I will try to add wikilinks to the more technical terms.
The islanders understanding of a large impending wave was simply phrased that way in the source. I personally do not know how they would, but that is what a reliable source says, so I included that information.
For the see also, they are both just related by Australian/Pacific interaction.
Thank you for the feedback and I'll ping you when I get home and fix the issues! SamBroGaming (talk) 21:54, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@QatarStarsLeague I have fixed the issues you have brought up, and moved the oblique portion to the tectonic setting where my refs better explain it. Hopefully that is enough to GA it, but of course if more fixing needs to be done, please let me know. Thanks, SamBroGaming (talk) 01:25, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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 RoySmith (talk16:48, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Improved to Good Article status by SamBroGaming (talk). Self-nominated at 05:43, 27 August 2022 (UTC).[reply]

  • Article has achieved Good Article status. No issues of copyvio or plagiarism. All sources appear reliable. Hook is interesting and sourced. QPQ just needs to be done and then this will be ready. Thriley (talk) 15:33, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@SamBroGaming: QPQ check is not showing any prior DYK credits. Can you confirm if this is your first DYK nomination? If it is, you don't need to provide a QPQ. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 06:23, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Narutolovehinata5: @Thriley: Yes, this is my first DYK nomination SamBroGaming (talk) 18:04, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Thriley: I guess this is good to go now? Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 14:47, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Looks all set. Thriley (talk) 06:07, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]