Talk:2016 Old Iliamna earthquake
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the 2016 Old Iliamna earthquake article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Injured? edit
In the table on left is an information, that one person get injuries by this quake, but in the source isnt something like this. Is this informaion true ore a fake?
--217.24.225.140 (talk) 17:06, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
- The references got slightly jumbled, but have been fixed now. Thanks for bringing this to our attention.Juneau Mike (talk) 06:08, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
External links modified edit
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on 2016 Old Iliamna earthquake. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160124215652/http://www.ktuu.com/news/news/strong-earthquake-with-initial-magnitude-of-about-71-hits-south-alaska/37610068 to http://www.ktuu.com/news/news/strong-earthquake-with-initial-magnitude-of-about-71-hits-south-alaska/37610068
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).
- If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
- If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:12, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
Foreshock? edit
In July 2015, six months before the 2016 event, there was a 6.3 earthquake that hit around the same location and depth as the 2016 event. Should the 2015 event be considered a foreshock to the 2016 earthquake? 24.237.72.63 (talk) 22:31, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
- The two earthquakes also have similar focal mechanisms. However, we can only consider it as a foreshock if a reliable source thinks that it is. Mikenorton (talk) 15:32, 28 May 2019 (UTC)