Talk:A false quake warning in Japan exposes problems for practical use

Sources

Are there any in English? DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 17:44, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

One of Daily Yomiuri Online was added by Anonymous101. I've searched for another (of NHK, Mainichi, etc.) but not found any.--Dumpty-Humpty (talk) 06:12, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Copyediting

Some of the words that you are replacing have subtly different meanings in English than the words you are replacing them with, causing the entire sentence to become incomprehensible, or changing the meaning from what you appear to mean based on the context of the sentence. Also, although words like "criterion" are technically correct, they probably aren't suited for use in a news article because they are never used in normal language (except in technical papers, or formal writing). This is one of those things like the word "pease", where it ended up being replaced with its slang derivative, "pea", and is no longer used. Gopher65_talk 01:39, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Oh, dear.... Let's not be so critic. None of us made edits which were wrong enough to be criticized in this public space. Even though I felt no difficulty in editing this article in English, I consulted my dictionaries for use of words.

It was I who used "criteria" first, and I by myself replaced it by "criterion." The latter appears in Wikipedia:Non-free content. I know that the former is used also for the singular form.

It was just your assumption that the parallel EEW scheme for the general public releases a warning not solely by the criteria of acceleration. Of course the acceleration is also calculated, but the criteria to release a warning does not apply to this scheme.

Dear SVTCobra wrote it's still not clear but, according to JMA, the mistake was committed only at one observation point.

I wrote "which is designed to analyze the seismic waves and issue a warning if large tremors are expected, as immediately as possible after an earthquake is detected." Here the if clause modifies "issue " only and the clause "as..." modifies both "analyze" and "issue." However, this part was misunderstood. So I changed it for "as..." to modify "analyze" only.

You wrote "EEW alert" but "EEW" stands for the system or a warning. This "W" is short for "warning". So "alert" is not to be added here.

Either "put into practice" or "put to practical use" will do, but I've not got a reason to stick to "put into practical use" which seems to be a mixed one.

--Dumpty-Humpty (talk) 06:03, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Title

"A false quake warning in Japan exposes problems for practical use" is not a good title! --SVTCobra 02:01, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

What about something like "False positive demonstrates flaws in Japanese earthquake early warning system"? 65.1.171.153 02:06, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

It used to be "False earthquake warning in Japan exposes flaws in warning systems" but that was changed, much to my chagrin. --SVTCobra 02:12, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

I've read your comments to my talk page. Maybe my title isn't the best, but I don't think it's nice to return to your title, which seems to be ambiguous in two points.

I understand your view that "system" can include people. However, don't confuse the warning system itself with media and devices to relay warnings. As to confusions this time in Aichi Prefecture and in the JMA building, the flaw existed in the relay devices. Months before now, NHK once made a mistake in relaying an EEW for the general public, while the flaw existed in the NHK's relaying procedure. These examples are not to be called "flaws in the warning systems."

A word "system" sometimes includes individuals. But I fear that not so many readers will take at first sight the words "warning systems" in your title as you insist. Your title rather implies as if the problems were in technical design of machines or computer programs. (In the article, "system" doesn't include the people: JMA operates the EEW system, not the people.) The JMA's mistake this time was one not in designing but in giving a value to a program. That wasn't a systematic flaw.

--Dumpty-Humpty (talk) 04:02, 17 July 2008 (UTC)