Difference between revisions of "Template:Did you know nominations/1966 Toro earthquake"

From blackwiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
imported>Mikenorton
(page numbers added)
imported>Empathictrust
(DYK is good to go)
Line 10: Line 10:
  
 
-->
 
-->
{{*mp}}... that the '''[[1966 Toro earthquake]]''' could be felt in six countries, [[Uganda]], the [[Democratic Republic of the Congo]], [[Rwanda]], [[Burundi]], [[Tanzania]], and [[Kenya]]?
+
{{*mp}} [[File:Symbol possible vote.svg|16px]]... that the '''[[1966 Toro earthquake]]''' could be felt in six countries, [[Uganda]], the [[Democratic Republic of the Congo]], [[Rwanda]], [[Burundi]], [[Tanzania]], and [[Kenya]]?
 
<!--
 
<!--
 
-->
 
-->
Line 21: Line 21:
  
 
:*I was going to nominate this with the following hook that I now propose as an alt.
 
:*I was going to nominate this with the following hook that I now propose as an alt.
:'''ALT1''' ... that following the '''[[1966 Toro earthquake]]''', more people died in the [[Democratic Republic of Congo]] as a result of a large aftershock than died in the original earthquake? [[User:Mikenorton|Mikenorton]] ([[User talk:Mikenorton|talk]]) 15:54, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
+
:'''ALT1''' [[File:Symbol_confirmed.svg|16px]] ... that following the '''[[1966 Toro earthquake]]''', more people died in the [[Democratic Republic of Congo]] as a result of a large aftershock than died in the original earthquake? [[User:Mikenorton|Mikenorton]] ([[User talk:Mikenorton|talk]]) 15:54, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
  
 
*[[File:Symbol question.svg|16px]] An interesting article, new enough, long enough (1940 characters of "readable prose"), with credible online sources, in general satisfies Wikipedia's policy for DYK eligibility. I would rather choose the second hook: it's more "captivating", despite the mentioning of all the countries affected by the earthquake in the 1st hook. It just needs a bit more work to do regarding sources' pages especially when citing the number of deaths of the hook. Then it will be ready to go. [[User:Empathictrust|Empathictrust]] ([[User talk:Empathictrust|talk]]) 23:25, 6 May 2012 (UTC)   
 
*[[File:Symbol question.svg|16px]] An interesting article, new enough, long enough (1940 characters of "readable prose"), with credible online sources, in general satisfies Wikipedia's policy for DYK eligibility. I would rather choose the second hook: it's more "captivating", despite the mentioning of all the countries affected by the earthquake in the 1st hook. It just needs a bit more work to do regarding sources' pages especially when citing the number of deaths of the hook. Then it will be ready to go. [[User:Empathictrust|Empathictrust]] ([[User talk:Empathictrust|talk]]) 23:25, 6 May 2012 (UTC)   
 
:*I've added the requested page numbers, the UNESCO report was rather long. For the Foster and Jackson paper I've given two page numbers, the first has a table that gives this earthquake an 'event number' and another where the earthquake itself is discussed, but only as an event number. [[User:Mikenorton|Mikenorton]] ([[User talk:Mikenorton|talk]]) 08:00, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
 
:*I've added the requested page numbers, the UNESCO report was rather long. For the Foster and Jackson paper I've given two page numbers, the first has a table that gives this earthquake an 'event number' and another where the earthquake itself is discussed, but only as an event number. [[User:Mikenorton|Mikenorton]] ([[User talk:Mikenorton|talk]]) 08:00, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
 +
 +
::*[[File:Symbol confirmed.svg|16px]] Pretty fine, DYK is ready for the ALT1! Just one comment: in the table of page 429, for the Event 660320 (Ruwenzori earthquake), there's a 7.0 moment magnitude [http://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-iarticle_query?db_key=AST&bibcode=1998GeoJI.134..422F&letter=0&classic=YES&defaultprint=YES&whole_paper=YES&page=422&epage=422&send=Send+PDF&filetype=.pdf], while Zana & Tanaka's 1981 review at the end of page 120, in "The  Mt.  Ruwenzori Region" section gives M 6.7-7 [http://ir.library.tohoku.ac.jp/re/bitstream/10097/45289/1/AA0045942681834.pdf] as does the [http://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/nndc/struts/results?eq_0=4362&t=101650&s=13&d=22,26,13,12&nd=display National Geophysical Data Center] (magnitude 6.75-7), but we're keeping the precise value of M<sub>w</sub> 6.8 of the most up to date (2009) source [http://www.sagaonline.co.za/2009Conference/CD%20Handout/SAGA%202009/PDFs/Abstracts_and_Papers/mavonga_paper1.pdf] on page 66 (as cited in the article). [[User:Empathictrust|Empathictrust]] ([[User talk:Empathictrust|talk]]) 15:10, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
  
 
}}<!--Please do not write below this line or remove this line. Place comments above this line.-->
 
}}<!--Please do not write below this line or remove this line. Place comments above this line.-->

Revision as of 15:10, 7 May 2012

1966 Toro earthquake

Created/expanded by Qrfqr (talk), Mikenorton (talk). Nominated by Carabinieri (talk) at 23:50, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

  • I was going to nominate this with the following hook that I now propose as an alt.
ALT1 Symbol confirmed.svg ... that following the 1966 Toro earthquake, more people died in the Democratic Republic of Congo as a result of a large aftershock than died in the original earthquake? Mikenorton (talk) 15:54, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Symbol question.svg An interesting article, new enough, long enough (1940 characters of "readable prose"), with credible online sources, in general satisfies Wikipedia's policy for DYK eligibility. I would rather choose the second hook: it's more "captivating", despite the mentioning of all the countries affected by the earthquake in the 1st hook. It just needs a bit more work to do regarding sources' pages especially when citing the number of deaths of the hook. Then it will be ready to go. Empathictrust (talk) 23:25, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
  • I've added the requested page numbers, the UNESCO report was rather long. For the Foster and Jackson paper I've given two page numbers, the first has a table that gives this earthquake an 'event number' and another where the earthquake itself is discussed, but only as an event number. Mikenorton (talk) 08:00, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Symbol confirmed.svg Pretty fine, DYK is ready for the ALT1! Just one comment: in the table of page 429, for the Event 660320 (Ruwenzori earthquake), there's a 7.0 moment magnitude [1], while Zana & Tanaka's 1981 review at the end of page 120, in "The Mt. Ruwenzori Region" section gives M 6.7-7 [2] as does the National Geophysical Data Center (magnitude 6.75-7), but we're keeping the precise value of Mw 6.8 of the most up to date (2009) source [3] on page 66 (as cited in the article). Empathictrust (talk) 15:10, 7 May 2012 (UTC)