Talk:2006 Pangandaran earthquake and tsunami/GA2

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Mike Christie (talk · contribs) 17:51, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

I'll review this. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 17:51, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Hi Mike, thanks for checking in. The good news about this article is that the majority of the sources are available. I was surprised to find so many readily available sources for the reconstruction when I stumbled across this article last June. Take your time on this one; there's no rush. I'm around most days so don't hesitate to ask for clarification, and I'll answer your questions or concerns with as much detail as possible. Thanks, Dawnseeker2000 18:22, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

You're welcome! I'm looking forward to doing the review. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:23, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Some initial comments are below; I haven't yet looked at the sources.

• I'm afraid I don't understand the ShakeMap. What does the red line indicate? Looks like the Sunda Trench (as well as another fault in the Sunda Strait) were included on that version. I looked at what the USGS now has on their ShakeMap archive and noticed that there's an updated file that does not include the faults. I've uploaded it to commons. None of the other ShakeMaps that I've used have faults represented on them, so maybe this was an early feature on those maps that wasn't kept in the long run.
• "which was comparable to a similar runup in northern Oman from the 2004 Indian Ocean earthquake and tsunami, though in that case it was at a much greater distance of 5,000 kilometers (3,100 mi)": not sure why this is worth mentioning. This is an effort by Fritz et al. to compare the energy of the two tsunamis. I think it's helpful for us to do the same. The 2004/2006 events came with such close timing and each had incredible impact on Sumatra/Java. As I was preparing this article I read the notes that were left by the GA re-assessment editor. One of his comments was that the article made no effort to compare or connect both events. The statement provides a way for the reader to visualize the energy for each event (comparable runup/more than twice the distance). Without this statement, the article would be left with a single statement comparing the two, "The tsunami affected the coast of Java comprising mostly fishing villages and beach resorts that were unscathed following the 2004 Indian Ocean tsunami".
• I think the mention of "Reese et al." in the body text should be removed; any reason this can't just be a citation and a statement of what Reese et al. said? I've rewritten the initial portion of that sentence.

-- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:11, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Sources are good, and I see no problems with image licenses or close paraphrasing. One more question:

• Why are there two pictures of Pamenpeuk beach? Does the 1925 image give the reader any information they don't get from the 2008 picture? I found the older picture and thought it was spectacular. If you look closely there is a person there on the beach though. Should we drop it?

-- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 17:27, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Well, for GA I'm not going to insist you drop it, but I can't really see a good justification. In an article about the beach, or about the town, you might be able to justify both, but I think it's just decorative here. I agree it's a great picture.

The article is GA standard; I'm passing it. Nice work. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 20:35, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the productive review. Happy new year! Dawnseeker2000 20:56, 28 December 2014 (UTC)