This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
2009 Dusky Sound earthquake article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
2009 Dusky Sound earthquake has been listed as one of the
Natural sciences good articles under the
good article criteria. If you can improve it further,
please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can
reassess it. Review: July 11, 2024. ( Reviewed version). |
It is requested that an image or photograph of 2009 Dusky Sound earthquake be
included in this article to
improve its quality. Please replace this template with a more specific
media request template where possible.
The Free Image Search Tool or Openverse Creative Commons Search may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites. |
A fact from 2009 Dusky Sound earthquake appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the
Did you know column on 23 July 2009 (
check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
|
This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||
|
On 31 May 2024, it was proposed that this article be moved from 2009 Fiordland earthquake to 2009 Dusky Sound earthquake. The result of the discussion was moved. |
Blimey. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Satirical Platypus ( talk • contribs) 02:51, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
There were tsunami warnings and evacuations for Australia, but as there were no tsunami and the earthquake did not 'quake' Australia, should it really be listed as one of the countries affected? Adabow ( talk) 10:03, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
I don't think we need a section on aftershocks. This data could be summarised, either verbally or as a graph and/or map. See 2004 Indian Ocean earthquake's section for an example. Adabow ( talk) 10:06, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
This was not the "largest New Zealand earthquake", etc, but the "strongest", surely! Also, it was not a "magnitude 7.8 earthquake" but an earthquake of magnitude 7.8 on the Moment magnitude scale. There are other scales. 203.184.41.226 ( talk) 07:33, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: moved. ( closed by non-admin page mover) Skarmory (talk • contribs) 00:11, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
2009 Fiordland earthquake → 2009 Dusky Sound earthquake – 2009 Dusky Sound earthquake appears to be the common name.
Looking at Google Scholar:
Media appears to be split between the two. ―
Panamitsu
(talk)
22:31, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Nominator: Panamitsu ( talk · contribs) 04:51, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
Reviewer: Marshelec ( talk · contribs) 00:27, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
I will undertake a review of this article over the next 7 days or so. Looking forward to learning more about this topic. Marshelec ( talk) 00:27, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
The article generally achieves a high standard. Feedback about the content is split between items that are "required" - ie must be addressed to meet the GA standard, and items that are "discretionary". These latter items are suggestions in good faith to make the article as good as it can be, in the time available for the review. They are not essential to meeting the GA standard, although I hope they will be considered.
It was the country's largest earthquake in terms of magnitude since the 1931 Hawke's Bay earthquake, and only caused minor damage. The word "and" should be replaced with "but". The contrast between the large magnitude of the earthquake, and the low level of damage is one of the most interesting aspects of this event. Using the word "but" will give the reader an immediate indication that there is a contrast that is an important part of this account.
Earthquake
The 2009 earthquake followed considerable seismic activity in northern Fiordland since 1988—six earthquakes above magnitude 6.0 struck the region before 2009,[10] including a magnitude 7.2 earthquake in 2003.[11]This sentence could be relocated to be the last sentence in the first paragraph of this section. This would create a better flow - although it would also be necessary to insert "2009 Dusky Sound earthquake" in the first sentence of the second paragraph.
At this location, the Indo-Australian Plate subducts obliquely beneath the latter tectonic plate ..Suggest replacing "latter" with "Pacific Plate" for ease of reading.
The 2009 earthquake followed considerable seismic activity in ..Suggest replacing "followed" with "occurred after a sequence of seismic events in .... "
The rupture initiated at a depth of 30 km (19 mi) and propagated southwards and towards the surface before it ceased just 15 km (9.3 mi) beneathThis sentence is awkward in the second half. Suggest a reworking to: "The rupture initiated at a depth of 30 km (19 mi) and propagated southwards and upwards before it ceased just 15 km (9.3 mi) beneath the surface."
The maximum displacement was estimated at 8.9 m (29 ft) about 23 km (14 mi) beneath the surface which occurred 16 seconds following the earthquake initiation. The word "which" in this sentence makes it awkward. Suggest it could be reworked to: "The maximum displacement was estimated at 8.9 m (29 ft) about 23 km (14 mi) beneath the surface, occurring around 16 seconds after the earthquake began".
As the rupture mainly propagated away from the mainland, the measured shaking intensity was weaker despite the earthquake's magnitude and shallow depth.Suggest this could be reworked to: "As the rupture mainly propagated away from the mainland, the measured shaking intensity was less than would normally be expected given the earthquake's magnitude and shallow depth"
Limited strong ground motion was recorded due to a lack of seismic stations near the earthquake's epicentre which was in a remote regionSuggest this could be reworked to: "The earthquake epicentre was in a remote region where few seismic stations were installed, and as a result, few strong motion recordings are available".
The ground motion characteristic resulted in fewer landslidesSuggest reworking to "..resulted in relatively few landslides"
Effects
At least 241 landslides were recorded, covering an area of about 5,600 km2..Suggest reworking to .. over an area of about 5,600 km2. (To avoid any possible interpretation that the actual surface area of landslides was 5,600 km2).
From 21:30, KiwiRail services were suspended south of Oamaru and in Buller Gorge to check for damage which resulted in some delays. They were operational again by midnight because no damage was found.Suggest reworking these two sentences to: "From 21:30, KiwiRail suspended rail services south of Oamaru and in the Buller Gorge to check for damage. Services were resumed by midnight because no damage was found."
The low damage was attributed to the earthquake's remote location, slow moment release rate, low frequency shaking,[8][15] and New Zealand's building standardsSuggest reworking this to: "The low level of damage, despite the large magnitude of the earthquake, was attributed to the earthquake's remote location, slow moment release rate, low frequency shaking,[8][15] and New Zealand's building standards.
Tsunami
... the tsunami may have been higher in some areas that were not surveyed due to the remoteness of the affected areaSuggest replacing the last "area" with "region" to avoid two uses of "area" in one sentence.
Initial round of review feedback completed. Marshelec ( talk) 07:41, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
Its epicentre was located near Dusky Sound in Fiordland National Park, at a depth of 12 km (7.5 mi), which is 160 km (99 mi) north-west of Invercargill.Once the depth issue is sorted, this sentence needs reworking to put the clauses in a better order. I suggest: " Its epicentre was at a depth of 12 km (7.5 mi) and located near Dusky Sound in Fiordland National Park, around 160 km (99 mi) north-west of Invercargill."
Despite being the country's largest earthquake in terms of magnitude since 1931 Hawke's Bay earthquake, which remains as the deadliest in New Zealand history, the 2009 earthquake had no casualties and caused only minor damage.. This sentence is now a bit long and convoluted, particularly for the lead. I suggest leaving out the description of the Hawke's Bay earthquake here, and simplifying the sentence to: "It was the country's largest magnitude earthquake since the 1931 Hawke's Bay earthquake, but caused only minor damage and there were no casualties."
It was New Zealand's biggest earthquake magnitude since the 1931 Hawke's Bay earthquake, which remains as the deadliest earthquake in New Zealand history, and its magnitude was identical to the 2016 Kaikōura earthquake.could be simplified to "It was New Zealand's biggest earthquake magnitude since the 1931 Hawke's Bay earthquake, and equal in magnitude to the 2016 Kaikōura earthquake."
@
Panamitsu:. I have added strikethoughs for feedback that has been resolved, and completed a second round of review. A couple of the discretionary items from the first round have not yet been addressed. The most significant remaining issue is the apparent inconsistency in the depth of the earthquake that I failed to pick up in the first round - sorry about that. Almost there now.
Marshelec (
talk)
00:53, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
I think I've done every suggestion now except for the depth. I'm also not that sure about how depth works and am confused with what to do here. In the preliminary report source it says, ... initiating at about 30 km depth and rupturing upward and southwestward to about 15 km depth
, but also says, The rupture starts downdip at about 38 km depth and propagates upward reaching a depth of 8 km
.
Dora the Axe-plorer, since you know a lot more than me and I think you're the one who added the 30km-15km depth thing, could you please have a look at this? Thanks. ―
Panamitsu
(talk)
01:38, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
initiating at about 30 km depth and rupturing upward and southwestward to about 15 km depth.. [3]. On page 26 of this report, there is an important discussion about the analysis of the main shock, and this describes a "solution" that indicates initiation at 38 km depth. A different source, GeoScience Frontiers, describes:
The updip and downdip edges of the rupture are estimated as 10 and 25.7 km, respectively[4]. Rather frustratingly, in the Introduction, it says:
This event appears to be one of the better recorded shallow (ca. 12 km) subduction thrust earthquakes. However, overall, the University of Canterbury source appears authoritative to me, and in my opinion is to be preferred over the immediate report from GeoNet. I suggest seeking another opinion, to try and close this out. I note that User:ChaseKiwi works on a lot of articles about physical geography, and volcanoes in particular. Perhaps this user might be willing to offer an opinion about how best to describe the depth of the earthquake in the article and Infobox. Are you happy to contact this user and ask for help ? Marshelec ( talk) 21:55, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
GeoNet reported a focal depth of 12 kilometres and (report) says that the rupture started at a depth of .... I don't want to scare quote, but to just indirectly show the reader that there is a conflict of information and they can decide what to do with the information themself. ― Panamitsu (talk) 13:13, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
"Our best-fitting slip distribution [...] is characterized by a large rupture area of about 36 by 44 km, with a maximum slip of 8.9 m at 23 km depth on the main fault plane occurring 16 seconds after the rupture began. The rupture starts downdip at about 38 km depth and propagates upward reaching a depth of 8 km"(p. 26). The 30-15 km range in the abstract is the RMT which includes aftershock data. So, 12 km is inside their initial rupture range of 38-8 km. We could just as easily put the initially reported 12 km hypocentre depth in the infobox, or the 38-8 km rupture depth given in Fry 2010, who also say
"focal depths in the Fiordland region are often poorly constrained using standard location methods"(p. 31) i.e. it's a complex geology that can frustrate model fitting. That's why I suggested using the range in the infobox rather than a single number. I don't think we should over-think it: for my money, I'd be happy with either, and I wouldn't fail a GA over it, but that's up to Marshelec! :) — Jon ( talk) 23:27, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
Panamitsu Great work on this article. It is an interesting account, and I have learned a lot during the review process. ChaseKiwi, and Jonathanischoice many thanks to both of you for assisting in helping with the understanding of how the different sources have analysed and reported on the event. Your assistance was really valuable and is most appreciated. Marshelec ( talk) 22:02, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
Good Article review progress box
|
― Panamitsu (talk) 00:09, 12 July 2024 (UTC).
General: Article is new enough and long enough |
---|
Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems |
---|
|
Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation |
---|
|
QPQ: Done. |
Overall:
No huge problems, although the hook says 78 years while the source and the article does not exactly say it. Also waiting for the QPQ.
🍗TheNugg
eteer🍗
12:04, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
🍗TheNugg
eteer🍗
08:26, 22 July 2024 (UTC)This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
2009 Dusky Sound earthquake article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
2009 Dusky Sound earthquake has been listed as one of the
Natural sciences good articles under the
good article criteria. If you can improve it further,
please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can
reassess it. Review: July 11, 2024. ( Reviewed version). |
It is requested that an image or photograph of 2009 Dusky Sound earthquake be
included in this article to
improve its quality. Please replace this template with a more specific
media request template where possible.
The Free Image Search Tool or Openverse Creative Commons Search may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites. |
A fact from 2009 Dusky Sound earthquake appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the
Did you know column on 23 July 2009 (
check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
|
This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||
|
On 31 May 2024, it was proposed that this article be moved from 2009 Fiordland earthquake to 2009 Dusky Sound earthquake. The result of the discussion was moved. |
Blimey. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Satirical Platypus ( talk • contribs) 02:51, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
There were tsunami warnings and evacuations for Australia, but as there were no tsunami and the earthquake did not 'quake' Australia, should it really be listed as one of the countries affected? Adabow ( talk) 10:03, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
I don't think we need a section on aftershocks. This data could be summarised, either verbally or as a graph and/or map. See 2004 Indian Ocean earthquake's section for an example. Adabow ( talk) 10:06, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
This was not the "largest New Zealand earthquake", etc, but the "strongest", surely! Also, it was not a "magnitude 7.8 earthquake" but an earthquake of magnitude 7.8 on the Moment magnitude scale. There are other scales. 203.184.41.226 ( talk) 07:33, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: moved. ( closed by non-admin page mover) Skarmory (talk • contribs) 00:11, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
2009 Fiordland earthquake → 2009 Dusky Sound earthquake – 2009 Dusky Sound earthquake appears to be the common name.
Looking at Google Scholar:
Media appears to be split between the two. ―
Panamitsu
(talk)
22:31, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Nominator: Panamitsu ( talk · contribs) 04:51, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
Reviewer: Marshelec ( talk · contribs) 00:27, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
I will undertake a review of this article over the next 7 days or so. Looking forward to learning more about this topic. Marshelec ( talk) 00:27, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
The article generally achieves a high standard. Feedback about the content is split between items that are "required" - ie must be addressed to meet the GA standard, and items that are "discretionary". These latter items are suggestions in good faith to make the article as good as it can be, in the time available for the review. They are not essential to meeting the GA standard, although I hope they will be considered.
It was the country's largest earthquake in terms of magnitude since the 1931 Hawke's Bay earthquake, and only caused minor damage. The word "and" should be replaced with "but". The contrast between the large magnitude of the earthquake, and the low level of damage is one of the most interesting aspects of this event. Using the word "but" will give the reader an immediate indication that there is a contrast that is an important part of this account.
Earthquake
The 2009 earthquake followed considerable seismic activity in northern Fiordland since 1988—six earthquakes above magnitude 6.0 struck the region before 2009,[10] including a magnitude 7.2 earthquake in 2003.[11]This sentence could be relocated to be the last sentence in the first paragraph of this section. This would create a better flow - although it would also be necessary to insert "2009 Dusky Sound earthquake" in the first sentence of the second paragraph.
At this location, the Indo-Australian Plate subducts obliquely beneath the latter tectonic plate ..Suggest replacing "latter" with "Pacific Plate" for ease of reading.
The 2009 earthquake followed considerable seismic activity in ..Suggest replacing "followed" with "occurred after a sequence of seismic events in .... "
The rupture initiated at a depth of 30 km (19 mi) and propagated southwards and towards the surface before it ceased just 15 km (9.3 mi) beneathThis sentence is awkward in the second half. Suggest a reworking to: "The rupture initiated at a depth of 30 km (19 mi) and propagated southwards and upwards before it ceased just 15 km (9.3 mi) beneath the surface."
The maximum displacement was estimated at 8.9 m (29 ft) about 23 km (14 mi) beneath the surface which occurred 16 seconds following the earthquake initiation. The word "which" in this sentence makes it awkward. Suggest it could be reworked to: "The maximum displacement was estimated at 8.9 m (29 ft) about 23 km (14 mi) beneath the surface, occurring around 16 seconds after the earthquake began".
As the rupture mainly propagated away from the mainland, the measured shaking intensity was weaker despite the earthquake's magnitude and shallow depth.Suggest this could be reworked to: "As the rupture mainly propagated away from the mainland, the measured shaking intensity was less than would normally be expected given the earthquake's magnitude and shallow depth"
Limited strong ground motion was recorded due to a lack of seismic stations near the earthquake's epicentre which was in a remote regionSuggest this could be reworked to: "The earthquake epicentre was in a remote region where few seismic stations were installed, and as a result, few strong motion recordings are available".
The ground motion characteristic resulted in fewer landslidesSuggest reworking to "..resulted in relatively few landslides"
Effects
At least 241 landslides were recorded, covering an area of about 5,600 km2..Suggest reworking to .. over an area of about 5,600 km2. (To avoid any possible interpretation that the actual surface area of landslides was 5,600 km2).
From 21:30, KiwiRail services were suspended south of Oamaru and in Buller Gorge to check for damage which resulted in some delays. They were operational again by midnight because no damage was found.Suggest reworking these two sentences to: "From 21:30, KiwiRail suspended rail services south of Oamaru and in the Buller Gorge to check for damage. Services were resumed by midnight because no damage was found."
The low damage was attributed to the earthquake's remote location, slow moment release rate, low frequency shaking,[8][15] and New Zealand's building standardsSuggest reworking this to: "The low level of damage, despite the large magnitude of the earthquake, was attributed to the earthquake's remote location, slow moment release rate, low frequency shaking,[8][15] and New Zealand's building standards.
Tsunami
... the tsunami may have been higher in some areas that were not surveyed due to the remoteness of the affected areaSuggest replacing the last "area" with "region" to avoid two uses of "area" in one sentence.
Initial round of review feedback completed. Marshelec ( talk) 07:41, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
Its epicentre was located near Dusky Sound in Fiordland National Park, at a depth of 12 km (7.5 mi), which is 160 km (99 mi) north-west of Invercargill.Once the depth issue is sorted, this sentence needs reworking to put the clauses in a better order. I suggest: " Its epicentre was at a depth of 12 km (7.5 mi) and located near Dusky Sound in Fiordland National Park, around 160 km (99 mi) north-west of Invercargill."
Despite being the country's largest earthquake in terms of magnitude since 1931 Hawke's Bay earthquake, which remains as the deadliest in New Zealand history, the 2009 earthquake had no casualties and caused only minor damage.. This sentence is now a bit long and convoluted, particularly for the lead. I suggest leaving out the description of the Hawke's Bay earthquake here, and simplifying the sentence to: "It was the country's largest magnitude earthquake since the 1931 Hawke's Bay earthquake, but caused only minor damage and there were no casualties."
It was New Zealand's biggest earthquake magnitude since the 1931 Hawke's Bay earthquake, which remains as the deadliest earthquake in New Zealand history, and its magnitude was identical to the 2016 Kaikōura earthquake.could be simplified to "It was New Zealand's biggest earthquake magnitude since the 1931 Hawke's Bay earthquake, and equal in magnitude to the 2016 Kaikōura earthquake."
@
Panamitsu:. I have added strikethoughs for feedback that has been resolved, and completed a second round of review. A couple of the discretionary items from the first round have not yet been addressed. The most significant remaining issue is the apparent inconsistency in the depth of the earthquake that I failed to pick up in the first round - sorry about that. Almost there now.
Marshelec (
talk)
00:53, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
I think I've done every suggestion now except for the depth. I'm also not that sure about how depth works and am confused with what to do here. In the preliminary report source it says, ... initiating at about 30 km depth and rupturing upward and southwestward to about 15 km depth
, but also says, The rupture starts downdip at about 38 km depth and propagates upward reaching a depth of 8 km
.
Dora the Axe-plorer, since you know a lot more than me and I think you're the one who added the 30km-15km depth thing, could you please have a look at this? Thanks. ―
Panamitsu
(talk)
01:38, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
initiating at about 30 km depth and rupturing upward and southwestward to about 15 km depth.. [3]. On page 26 of this report, there is an important discussion about the analysis of the main shock, and this describes a "solution" that indicates initiation at 38 km depth. A different source, GeoScience Frontiers, describes:
The updip and downdip edges of the rupture are estimated as 10 and 25.7 km, respectively[4]. Rather frustratingly, in the Introduction, it says:
This event appears to be one of the better recorded shallow (ca. 12 km) subduction thrust earthquakes. However, overall, the University of Canterbury source appears authoritative to me, and in my opinion is to be preferred over the immediate report from GeoNet. I suggest seeking another opinion, to try and close this out. I note that User:ChaseKiwi works on a lot of articles about physical geography, and volcanoes in particular. Perhaps this user might be willing to offer an opinion about how best to describe the depth of the earthquake in the article and Infobox. Are you happy to contact this user and ask for help ? Marshelec ( talk) 21:55, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
GeoNet reported a focal depth of 12 kilometres and (report) says that the rupture started at a depth of .... I don't want to scare quote, but to just indirectly show the reader that there is a conflict of information and they can decide what to do with the information themself. ― Panamitsu (talk) 13:13, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
"Our best-fitting slip distribution [...] is characterized by a large rupture area of about 36 by 44 km, with a maximum slip of 8.9 m at 23 km depth on the main fault plane occurring 16 seconds after the rupture began. The rupture starts downdip at about 38 km depth and propagates upward reaching a depth of 8 km"(p. 26). The 30-15 km range in the abstract is the RMT which includes aftershock data. So, 12 km is inside their initial rupture range of 38-8 km. We could just as easily put the initially reported 12 km hypocentre depth in the infobox, or the 38-8 km rupture depth given in Fry 2010, who also say
"focal depths in the Fiordland region are often poorly constrained using standard location methods"(p. 31) i.e. it's a complex geology that can frustrate model fitting. That's why I suggested using the range in the infobox rather than a single number. I don't think we should over-think it: for my money, I'd be happy with either, and I wouldn't fail a GA over it, but that's up to Marshelec! :) — Jon ( talk) 23:27, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
Panamitsu Great work on this article. It is an interesting account, and I have learned a lot during the review process. ChaseKiwi, and Jonathanischoice many thanks to both of you for assisting in helping with the understanding of how the different sources have analysed and reported on the event. Your assistance was really valuable and is most appreciated. Marshelec ( talk) 22:02, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
Good Article review progress box
|
― Panamitsu (talk) 00:09, 12 July 2024 (UTC).
General: Article is new enough and long enough |
---|
Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems |
---|
|
Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation |
---|
|
QPQ: Done. |
Overall:
No huge problems, although the hook says 78 years while the source and the article does not exactly say it. Also waiting for the QPQ.
🍗TheNugg
eteer🍗
12:04, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
🍗TheNugg
eteer🍗
08:26, 22 July 2024 (UTC)