Talk:2009 Dusky Sound earthquake

Untitled

Blimey. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Satirical Platypus (talk • contribs) 02:51, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Australia affected?

There were tsunami warnings and evacuations for Australia, but as there were no tsunami and the earthquake did not 'quake' Australia, should it really be listed as one of the countries affected? Adabow (talk) 10:03, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Aftershocks

I don't think we need a section on aftershocks. This data could be summarised, either verbally or as a graph and/or map. See 2004 Indian Ocean earthquake's section for an example. Adabow (talk) 10:06, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Terminology

This was not the "largest New Zealand earthquake", etc, but the "strongest", surely! Also, it was not a "magnitude 7.8 earthquake" but an earthquake of magnitude 7.8 on the Moment magnitude scale. There are other scales.203.184.41.226 (talk) 07:33, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Requested move 31 May 2024

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) Skarmory (talk • contribs) 00:11, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

---

2009 Fiordland earthquake → 2009 Dusky Sound earthquake – 2009 Dusky Sound earthquake appears to be the common name.

Looking at Google Scholar:

• "2009 Dusky Sound earthquake" has 51 results
• "2009 Fiordland earthquake" has 21 results

GeoNet uses Dusky Sound

Media appears to be split between the two. ―Panamitsu (talk) 22:31, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

By the seventh day of opening this proposal you could just move to the new title (or ask at WP:RM) per WP:SILENCE. Given the low-profile of the topic and absence of discussions, I don't forsee any strong oppositions. It'll make the GA nomination smoother unless the reviewer decides to pitch in, Dora the Axe-plorer (explore) 05:02, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

Support - earthquake seems to be more commonly referred to as the Dusky Sound earthquake than Fiordland more broadly. Turnagra (talk) 21:43, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

Support - makes sense based on those Scholar results. Mikenorton (talk) 22:21, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:2009 Dusky Sound earthquake/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: Panamitsu (talk · contribs) 04:51, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

Reviewer: Marshelec (talk · contribs) 00:27, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

I will undertake a review of this article over the next 7 days or so. Looking forward to learning more about this topic.Marshelec (talk) 00:27, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

Well-written

The article generally achieves a high standard. Feedback about the content is split between items that are "required" - ie must be addressed to meet the GA standard, and items that are "discretionary". These latter items are suggestions in good faith to make the article as good as it can be, in the time available for the review. They are not essential to meeting the GA standard, although I hope they will be considered.

Infobox

Required

• The Tsunami run-up figure of 2.3m is supported by the abstract of this source: [1]. However, it does not match the text in the Tsunami section where 230cm is quoted. This discrepancy needs to be resolved.

Lead

Required

• The first sentence needs to be reworked to comply with MOS:LEAD, in particular MOS:LEADSENTENCE. Here is one possible reworking:

The 2009 Dusky Sound earthquake was a M_w 7.8 earthquake that struck a remote region of Fiordland in the South Island of New Zealand, on 15 July 2009 at 21:22 NZST (09:22 UTC).

• The source no 2 says that the epicentre was 160km north-west of Invercargill, not 150km. If sources differ this possibly may be OK, but I would expect the GeoNet source to be reliable. This needs to be resolved.

Discretionary

• There are three successive sentences in the lead that commence with It or Its. Minor reworking would avoid this.
• It was the country's largest earthquake in terms of magnitude since the 1931 Hawke's Bay earthquake, and only caused minor damage. The word "and" should be replaced with "but". The contrast between the large magnitude of the earthquake, and the low level of damage is one of the most interesting aspects of this event. Using the word "but" will give the reader an immediate indication that there is a contrast that is an important part of this account.
• "epicentre" should be wikilinked
• "tsunami" should be wikilinked

Earthquake

Discretionary

• The 2009 earthquake followed considerable seismic activity in northern Fiordland since 1988—six earthquakes above magnitude 6.0 struck the region before 2009,[10] including a magnitude 7.2 earthquake in 2003.[11] This sentence could be relocated to be the last sentence in the first paragraph of this section. This would create a better flow - although it would also be necessary to insert "2009 Dusky Sound earthquake" in the first sentence of the second paragraph.
• "subduction" should be wikilinked
• At this location, the Indo-Australian Plate subducts obliquely beneath the latter tectonic plate .. Suggest replacing "latter" with "Pacific Plate" for ease of reading.
• The 2009 earthquake followed considerable seismic activity in .. Suggest replacing "followed" with "occurred after a sequence of seismic events in .... "
• The rupture initiated at a depth of 30 km (19 mi) and propagated southwards and towards the surface before it ceased just 15 km (9.3 mi) beneath This sentence is awkward in the second half. Suggest a reworking to: "The rupture initiated at a depth of 30 km (19 mi) and propagated southwards and upwards before it ceased just 15 km (9.3 mi) beneath the surface."
• The maximum displacement was estimated at 8.9 m (29 ft) about 23 km (14 mi) beneath the surface which occurred 16 seconds following the earthquake initiation. The word "which" in this sentence makes it awkward. Suggest it could be reworked to: "The maximum displacement was estimated at 8.9 m (29 ft) about 23 km (14 mi) beneath the surface, occurring around 16 seconds after the earthquake began".
• As the rupture mainly propagated away from the mainland, the measured shaking intensity was weaker despite the earthquake's magnitude and shallow depth. Suggest this could be reworked to: "As the rupture mainly propagated away from the mainland, the measured shaking intensity was less than would normally be expected given the earthquake's magnitude and shallow depth"
• Limited strong ground motion was recorded due to a lack of seismic stations near the earthquake's epicentre which was in a remote region Suggest this could be reworked to: "The earthquake epicentre was in a remote region where few seismic stations were installed, and as a result, few strong motion recordings are available".
• The ground motion characteristic resulted in fewer landslides Suggest reworking to "..resulted in relatively few landslides"

Effects

Discretionary

• At least 241 landslides were recorded, covering an area of about 5,600 km2.. Suggest reworking to .. over an area of about 5,600 km2. (To avoid any possible interpretation that the actual surface area of landslides was 5,600 km2).
• From 21:30, KiwiRail services were suspended south of Oamaru and in Buller Gorge to check for damage which resulted in some delays. They were operational again by midnight because no damage was found. Suggest reworking these two sentences to: "From 21:30, KiwiRail suspended rail services south of Oamaru and in the Buller Gorge to check for damage. Services were resumed by midnight because no damage was found."
• The low damage was attributed to the earthquake's remote location, slow moment release rate, low frequency shaking,[8][15] and New Zealand's building standards Suggest reworking this to: "The low level of damage, despite the large magnitude of the earthquake, was attributed to the earthquake's remote location, slow moment release rate, low frequency shaking,[8][15] and New Zealand's building standards.

Tsunami

Required

• As noted above, a discrepancy in the tsunami run-up figure of 2.3m in the Infobox and the 230cm quoted in this section must be resolved.

Discretionary

• ... the tsunami may have been higher in some areas that were not surveyed due to the remoteness of the affected area Suggest replacing the last "area" with "region" to avoid two uses of "area" in one sentence.

Verifiable with no original research

• Content is well supported with inline citations of reliable sources
• No original research is identified
• Earwig copyvio tool does not indicate anything of concern

Broad in its coverage

• Provides good coverage of the subject without straying off topic or providing excessive detail

Neutral

• No issues found

Stable

• No issues

Illustrated

• Images are relevant to the subject, and have suitable captions

Initial round of feedback

Initial round of review feedback completed.Marshelec (talk) 07:41, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

I've incorporated every suggested change. I've also that the 1931 earthquake is the deadliest in New Zealand history to help explain why the the damage in 2009 was so surprising, but I'm unsure if this counts as some form of editorialising. ―Panamitsu (talk) 08:41, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

Second round of feedback

Required

• On further reading, I see that I missed an important point in the first round of review comments - my apologies. In the lead, and in the Infobox, the depth is stated as 12 km, and this aligns with the first source. However, in the Earthquake section, it states that the earthquake began at 30km beneath the surface and propagated up, finishing 15km beneath the surface. I am no expert, but these do not seem to line up. I do not know the convention for defining the depth. It may be somewhat complex, given the description of how the earthquake propagated. This needs some investigation - to determine how best to state the depth in the lead and infobox, and to ensure alignment between the lead and the body.
• The second sentence in the lead is currently: Its epicentre was located near Dusky Sound in Fiordland National Park, at a depth of 12 km (7.5 mi), which is 160 km (99 mi) north-west of Invercargill. Once the depth issue is sorted, this sentence needs reworking to put the clauses in a better order. I suggest: " Its epicentre was at a depth of 12 km (7.5 mi) and located near Dusky Sound in Fiordland National Park, around 160 km (99 mi) north-west of Invercargill."

Discretionary

• Despite being the country's largest earthquake in terms of magnitude since 1931 Hawke's Bay earthquake, which remains as the deadliest in New Zealand history, the 2009 earthquake had no casualties and caused only minor damage.. This sentence is now a bit long and convoluted, particularly for the lead. I suggest leaving out the description of the Hawke's Bay earthquake here, and simplifying the sentence to: "It was the country's largest magnitude earthquake since the 1931 Hawke's Bay earthquake, but caused only minor damage and there were no casualties."
• In the Earthquake section, I recommend a similar simplification. It was New Zealand's biggest earthquake magnitude since the 1931 Hawke's Bay earthquake, which remains as the deadliest earthquake in New Zealand history, and its magnitude was identical to the 2016 Kaikōura earthquake. could be simplified to "It was New Zealand's biggest earthquake magnitude since the 1931 Hawke's Bay earthquake, and equal in magnitude to the 2016 Kaikōura earthquake."

@Panamitsu:. I have added strikethoughs for feedback that has been resolved, and completed a second round of review. A couple of the discretionary items from the first round have not yet been addressed. The most significant remaining issue is the apparent inconsistency in the depth of the earthquake that I failed to pick up in the first round - sorry about that. Almost there now. Marshelec (talk) 00:53, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

I think I've done every suggestion now except for the depth. I'm also not that sure about how depth works and am confused with what to do here. In the preliminary report source it says, ... initiating at about 30 km depth and rupturing upward and southwestward to about 15 km depth, but also says, The rupture starts downdip at about 38 km depth and propagates upward reaching a depth of 8 km. Dora the Axe-plorer, since you know a lot more than me and I think you're the one who added the 30km-15km depth thing, could you please have a look at this? Thanks. ―Panamitsu (talk) 01:38, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

Unfortunately I can not figure out what is going on. I am unable to find more depths from another source. ―Panamitsu (talk) 08:38, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

What's confusing me is that a few of the sources like Geonet say that the rupture started at a depth of 30 kilometres, but do not mention the depth when it stopped. I have no idea why this is happening, and I wonder if it's because the 30km-15km number comes from a preliminary report which does not mention the 12km depth. I don't want to remove this number because it's the only one I can find, but it being in a preliminary report makes me a bit suspicious. ―Panamitsu (talk) 08:53, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

Summary

Good Article review progress box Criteria: 1a. prose () 1b. MoS () 2a. ref layout () 2b. cites WP:RS () 2c. no WP:OR () 2d. no WP:CV () 3a. broadness () 3b. focus () 4. neutral () 5. stable () 6a. free or tagged images () 6b. pics relevant () Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked are unassessed