Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/April 2011 Fukushima earthquake/1

April 2011 Fukushima earthquake

 * • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review
 * Result: kept

The article fails Criterion 2 of WP:WIAGA, which covers sourcing and verifiability. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 03:29, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

In particular:


 * 1) Article: "Nevertheless, the Fukushima Hamadori earthquake was the strongest registered aftershock to have its epicentre located inland.[10][11]"
 * 2) *Neither ref 10 nor ref 11 state this. This appears to be some kind of synthesis.
 * 3) Article: "Although it was centered near a different fault zone, the earthquake was reported to be an aftershock of the 11 March Tōhoku earthquake, which occurred offshore about 235 km (145 mi) to its northeast.[8][1]"
 * 4) *Neither ref 8 or ref 1 provide the distance between the two earthquakes.
 * 5) **With precise latitude and longitude distance is established and easily WP:Ved.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 03:39, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
 * 6) ***Using what measure? Isn't this then original research? And even if it is "easily verified", the burden isn't on the reader to provide the verifiable source, but on the editor, which he or she has failed to do. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 03:42, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
 * 7) ****I don't know the details of latitude and longitude but mathematically the distance is as reliably sourced as a statement that one thing happened at noon and another thing happened at 6 for a WP statement that two events occured 6 hours apart.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 03:49, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
 * 8) Article: "Workers at the damaged Fukushima Daiichi power plant — distanced near 70 km (40 mi) from the epicentre[14][1]"
 * 9) *Again, neither of the provided references gives such a distance estimate.
 * 10) **Again precise latitude and longitude establish WP:V distance.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 03:41, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
 * 11) ***Using what measure? Isn't this then original research? Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 03:42, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
 * 12) Article: "A warning for a localized tsunami of up to 2.0 m (6.6 ft) was issued by the Japan Meteorological Agency; however, it was quickly canceled after no waves had been reported.[19][13]"
 * 13) *Classic synthesis. Ref 13 says a warning was issued and later lifted. Ref 19 says "The Pacific Tsunami Centre said the earthquake had not triggered a widespread tsunami." This sentence links two statements of fact to form a new statement not supported by either source.
 * 14) **I am failing to understand your point.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 03:53, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
 * 15) ***See WP:SYNTH: "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. ... "A and B, therefore C" is acceptable only if a reliable source has published the same argument in relation to the topic of the article." This is a good example of that. A = warning issued and cancelled. B = earthquake triggered no tsunami. C = warning "quickly canceled" because no waves reported. It's different from if there was a source saying the warning was withdrawn because there was no tsunami. To suggest that it was quickly cancelled because there were no reports of waves is joining the two statements together inappropriately. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 03:58, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
 * 16) ****lol, if you want to be that pedantic, I can change it to ";however, no waves were reported, and the warning was canceled," making it two different statements supported by two different sources. Simple as that. ★ Auree (talk) 08:30, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep. Nominator is being too picky. The refs could be deleted and it still passes GA, they aren't perfect but neither are they misleading. Szzuk (talk) 09:05, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I think we should wrap this up, since the nominator isn't even discussing anymore. ★ Auree (talk) 14:39, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Agree. Szzuk (talk) 17:44, 10 May 2011 (UTC)