Template:Did you know nominations/James H. Dieterich


 * 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 Allen3 talk 09:30, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

James H. Dieterich

 * ... that a 2002 study confirmed James H. Dieterich theory of a predictable correlation between an earthquake and the rate of ensuing aftershocks?
 * ALT1 ... that a 2002 study confirmed James H. Dieterich theory of earthquake magnitude and the rate of ensuing aftershocks occurring in inverse proportion?
 * Reviewed: Edmund Marion Ashe

Moved to mainspace by Chris troutman (talk). Self nominated at 21:27, 27 March 2015 (UTC).


 * How does an earthquake "correlate" with something? Is it the intensity that correlates? The duration? What? EEng (talk) 21:43, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Since this isn't my field I didn't want to attempt writing geophysics. The cited literature indicates that the intensity of an earthquake indicates the intensity and duration of the following aftershocks. I simplified the matter but what I wrote is supported by the citations. Chris Troutman  ( talk ) 22:45, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Then say that in the hook. I'd do it myself but I can't see the source. EEng (talk) 23:26, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I wrote the hook as I had. I don't find your drive-by comment useful, either. I'm looking for a review of my hook, not literary advice. Chris Troutman  ( talk ) 03:41, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I have no idea what "I wrote the hook as I had" means, but ALT0 makes no sense to a reasonably intelligent, reasonably educated, reasonably interested reader who happens to have a degree in (among other things) statistics i.e. me. You can't "correlate an earthquake" with something -- only some quantitative attribute of the earthquake can correlate with something. If, as you say, "The cited literature indicates that the intensity of an earthquake indicates the intensity and duration of the following aftershocks", then say that in the article, with citation, and propose a hook that tracks that. ALT0 as stated is meaningless, and for that reason I've struck it. EEng (talk) 04:29, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
 * For the record, EEng, you are no longer welcome to comment on any DYK nominations of mine nor do I want to see you on my talk page. I wrote a new hook based on your request, regardless of your unwillingness to be helpful. Chris Troutman  ( talk ) 21:17, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I can't imagine why you think I would visit your talk page. As for DYK, if you nominate any more unintelligible hooks I'll certainly be pointing that out.
 * Now, as to ALT1, per the sources Dieterich's theory is not a theory of earthquake magnitude and the rate of ensuing aftershocks occurring in inverse proportion (whatever that could mean) but rather a seismological theory that predicts that earthquake magnitude and the rate of ensuing aftershocks occur etc etc.
 * ALT2 ... that a 2002 study confirmed James H. Dieterich theory predicting that an earthquake's magnitude and the rate of ensuing aftershocks are in inverse proportion?
 * EEng (talk) 16:06, 16 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Symbol redirect vote 4.svg Full review needed now that new hook is proposed. BlueMoonset (talk) 23:46, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Symbol voting keep.svg Identically interesting. I would ask Chris troutman to break the article into atleast 1 section.  Occult Zone  (Talk • Contributions • Log) 04:01, 3 May 2015 (UTC)