Talk:Earthquake casualty estimation

Problems

The article contains lots of information, but many sections are unsourced and either original research or synthesis. Vsmith (talk) 14:36, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

I adapted the layout, used nbsp, cite templates. Headings aren't supposed to have wikilinks. Hyperlinks are supposed to have titles, ok not always. We links are not necessary as the PDF generator writes them down. Wikilink: I piped intensity to Mercalli intensity scale, I hope it's ok :) We can use <ref name=xxx /> at the end of some sections I suppose. --Chris.urs-o (talk) 21:03, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

I thank you for taking the time to read this page and make a comment. I would like to help. Unfortunately this comment about "unsourced" is useless for me. The comment is general, so I do not know which part seem unsourced to you. The problem is that we live in different worlds. For me everything on this page is crystal clear. Sorry about that, this is so because I wrote this page. If someone told me which parts need more explanation or citations, I could try to fix these parts up. It may also be that sources do not exist. In that case I cannot do much. When we review an article in the science world, we always tell what specifically we would like to be explained better. If you have the time, please do that. I will take the time to add what is missing.MaxWyss (talk) 01:42, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Earthquake casualty estimation. 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:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://earthquake.usgs.gov/

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 08:49, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Title

Someone has changed the title in a way that is incorrect. We have options to reach a correct title. The length is an issue, but would perhaps information be more important than length? The following are some observations regarding specific words and their importance in the title.

(1) The word "casualties" has been introduced. This is ok, only then this word needs to be defined right up front. I have done that. No additional action required. The word is good in my opinion.

(2) The word "damage" is missing from the new title. A sizable section of the page has to do with earthquake damage estimates. And it is collapsing buildings that kill and injure people. Therefore the word "damage" should appear in the title, but that would perhaps make the title too long.

(3) We have to add "real-time" to the title, or else readers think these are estimates made by engineers months after the earthquake.

I propose the following title. "Earthquake casualty estimation in real-time". MaxWyss (talk) 01:56, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Rating

I am struggling to find an inoffensive word to describe what I think of the rating "low". This article describes how real-time estimates of earthquake casualties help first responders mount fast and adequately strong interventions to save injured people from dying. Some medical teams and some government response teams understand that. This is one of the very few ways in which earthquake science can actually help people. No one who understands the benefits of this work and gives the rating careful thought would rate it low. Nothing less than a rating of "top" will do. Please change this rating, I believe I cannot do it.MaxWyss (talk) 02:14, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

You are judging the importance of this from the perspective of society (or at least that portion affected by a major earthquake), but the "importance" scale here is only in regard to the encyclopedia. It is assessed relative to other topics in a given area. Any questions about that should be taken up at the project level (i.e., WP:WikiProject_Earthquakes).

I have been looking around for some others that might be interested in helping you on this, but nothing so far. That could be taken as a green-light to proceed as you will. But keep in mind that eventually (in two or three years?) someone does show up, and if you have wandered far from the WP norms the drastic editing that ensues can be a bit of a shock. I'll try to advise where I can, but as I think I have said before, I'm not the best person for this. There are several places where you can ask for assistance. Or just look for editors that seem to be interested in the general topic and ask them directly. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 19:59, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Algiers neighborhoods seen from space.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 22:37, 28 March 2022 (UTC)