File talk:Graph of largest earthquakes 1906-2005.png

1964 Alaska quake incorrect

The correct magnitude for the 1964 Alaska earthquake should be 9.2 instead of 9.4, according to the USGS. — Glenn L (talk) 10:12, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Format Question

Is a pie chart really appropriate for this sort of data? I would expect a bar graph or something similar, since the given values are not percentages 168.7.250.114 (talk) 21:44, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree. Also, the magnitudes are logarithmic, which doesn't appear to be reflected in the pie chart, making it very inaccurate. E.g. an M8 should be 10 times the size of an M7. —Pengo 05:06, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. A pie chart for this sort of data makes no sense. A bar chart would be a step in the right direction. Anyone care to redo this image? --24.17.63.79 (talk) 00:55, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

True, pie charts are only useful to show shares.Makrom (talk) 14:37, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

I disagree - a pie chart is appropriate because this chart shows percentages of total potential energy transformed in all earthquakes of the last 100 years. The three largest earthquakes transformed almost half the total, which this chart exposes nicely. The only quibble I have is that segments representing the 3 largest earthquakes are in ascending magnitude counterclockwise, while the rest of the chart is ascending magnitude clockwise. It would be easier to follow if segments for the 3 largest earthquakes are reordered so that their Mw numbers increase in the clockwise direction (but reassign colours to retain the current pleasing colour sequence). 74.216.90.239 (talk) 08:33, 20 November 2011 (UTC)