Talk:2004 Indian Ocean earthquake and tsunami

2004 Indian Ocean earthquake and tsunami has been listed as one of the good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Review: No date specified. To provide a date use: {{GA|insert date in any format here}}.

Template:FACfailed is deprecated, and is preserved only for historical reasons. Please see Template:Article history instead.

This article (or a previous version) is a former featured article candidate. Please view its sub-page to see why the nomination did not succeed.
For older candidates, please check the Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Archived nominations.

This article has been mentioned by a media organization:

Fred Goldstein (January 8, 2005). "Deaths not just act of nature: Socialist organization & planning can save lives". Workers World.

This article has been mentioned by a media organization:

David M. Green (January 16, 2005). "Tsunami info: A world of links". Chicago Times.

By subject: Article organization, Multimedia, List of victims, Vandalism.

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6.

Registration-required link

In one of the first few paragraphs of the article is the text:
It also triggered earthquakes elsewhere, as far away as Alaska (Science).

Can we get a link to an article that doesn't require registration? I've tried Googling, but haven't yet found any articles that talk about other earthquakes being triggered by this one. Mr. Billion 07:32, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, it's true. The article says that 14 small earthquakes occuring 20 to 30 seconds apart were detected near Mount Wrangell of Alaska an hour after the Sumatran quake. The ground shook because of surface waves that researchers believe to have originated from the earlier earthquake. The timing is also consistent.

The article references a paper published in Science that has an abstract available for free inspection at http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/308/5725/1144. My browser isn't unicode compliant, so I don't dare edit the main article. Anybody who sees this, please change the link in the article to the one above. -D. Wu 21:48, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Done. I can't register to get at the abstract, but I take your word for it. Mark ¹ 01:38, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Number dead in introductory paragraphs

I just revised significantly downward the number of dead cited in the first and fifth paragraphs of the article.

For the fifth paragraph ("Between 170,000–250,000 people are thought to have died..."): To obtain the 170,000 figure, I took the 174,542 confirmed deaths figure from the table under "Damage and Causalties"; to get the 250,000, I took the ~193,623 estimated deaths and added the ~51,598 missing from the table, then rounded up. For the first paragraph ("...killing well over 150,000): I just took the 170,000 and rounded down.

My question is: Does this look right to you? I only ask because it's such a significant departure from the previous figures in these sentences.

On a related note on the causalties table, it doesn't seem right to me that the number of fatalities should be greater than the number of injuries. Any thoughts? --zenohockey 04:33, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

As someone said before (dunno what happened to it), people who survived probably wet, or hit with some floating debris. I'd wager a lot of them weren't injured. --Golbez 04:26, August 18, 2005 (UTC)

Book about tsunami credits Wikipedia

I was browsing in a local bookstore today when I saw this book: Tsunami: The Most Terrifying Disaster by Geoff Tibballs. I flipped through it and at the very last page, the author credits en.wikipedia.org as one of the book's sources! The book is also available at through Amazon.com ([1]). Well done guys! --Andylkl ^(talk) 16:38, August 21, 2005 (UTC)

Pic of the day

The picture Image:2004-tsunami.jpg is due up for Picture of the Day on Sunday. Since people editing here probably know more about the subject than most, it would be good if someone could check and correct the associated caption at Wikipedia:Picture of the day/September 25, 2005. -- Solipsist 07:06, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

disambiguation request: "Awa" and fact check

In the section relating casualties, it is mentioned that a 1703 tsunami claimed 100,000 lives when it struck Awa, Japan. First, a historical tsunami that hit Awa listed at Tsunami#Other_historical_tsunamis for 1700 but there is no mention of a 1703 event; were there two events or is one of the two dates incorrect? Second, Awa has several Japanese geographical meanings and it would be useful if someone could disambiguate this term in this article. Thanks for your help. Courtland 01:10, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I did a bit of research and put my findings, and further questions, at Talk:Tsunami#Awa. Cheers, Banyan Tree 01:41, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Bilham (2005) submitted an Errata on 30th Sept 2005

Bilham (2005) submitted an errata on 30th Sept 2005, reducing the estimated energy released to 1.1×10¹⁸ joules. This corresponds to about 0.25 gigatons of TNT Diamond Dave 19/10/2005 20:26

The Great Referencing Clean-up

I'm girding myself up for a run through this article, converting inline references to footnotes and checking that everything is properly referenced. Before I start, would anyone for any reason rather I didn't? Speak now or forever hold your peace... Mark ¹ 22:58, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Warning signs

The article mentions how one girl who had studied Tsunamis recognised the warning signs. I distinctly remember having seen people who survived who mentioned how they had recognised the warning signs and evacuated. Some of these people did not appear to make any effort to warn others. Regardless, anyone willing to track those some references so we can add a bit info on this (people, I expect largely tourists who did recognise the warning signs and evacuated)? Nil Einne 16:27, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Tsunami and Katrina

Is this sentence really necessary?

"A recent documentary on the Discovery Channel said the scene of the 2004 tsunami was "even worse than Hurricane Katrina", which occured about 8 months after the tsunami."

Not to belittle the Katrina tragedy, but the Tsunami tragedy was orders of magnitude bigger than Katrina by any scale. The sentence (as well as the "observation" by Discovery Channel) seems totally superfluous.

It's ludicrous. I've removed it. Mark ¹ 09:36, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Strange Citation

The first citation is [2], not [1]. Can someone check what is causing this to happen? - Mailer Diablo 14:03, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I've transferred the links into footnote citations, now I'll need a kind soul to do the reorganisation per WP:CITE...Thanks! - Mailer Diablo 14:31, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Footnotes

Can I suggest that the footnotes go on a separate page? They make it very long for a browser

--BozMo talk 15:13, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid they can't; they need to be on the same page as the footnote call. Mark ¹ 15:31, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]