Talk:Strongest earthquake in 40 years hits Southeast Asia
- 1 Is this article ok?
- 2 Improvement Tips
- 3 Comment from 188.8.131.52
- 4 Tech Note: Animated GIFs cannot be scaled
- 5 Other improvements
- 6 Follow up on Davodd's suggestions
- 7 Wikipedia is not a primary source
- 8 donation information out of date
- 9 Link to the help page at the top?
- 10 Prominent link to WP article missing
- 11 tsunami conspiracy theory
- 12 Category
- 13 Images from commonns
- 14 WAT r u on?????
- 15 Comment from 184.108.40.206
Is this article ok?
Sign below, please.
- Davodd 01:39, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC) -REASON: As a writer and editor of news for the better part of the past two decades, in my professional opinion, this article misses the point in many ways, including: 1. It reads like an encyclopedia or college report, not a news article. 2. It lacks any relevant "urgency" that makes news "NEWS" instead of an in-progress historical document. 3. It is static in tone and structure and does not reflect that news is changing. It needs in-progress fugures. 4. The writing is dull and uninspired. 5. The writing style does not conform to any acceptible journalistic standard. 6. The paragraphs are too long, ponderous and fail to get to the point. 7. The fact that we have one article on this topic is strange. There should be hundreds (or at least several). 8. The headline is boring.
The estimates of how many were killed in this disaster keep going up in the various reports I am reading, sometimes wildly so, such that it's probably a good idea to hold off on updating the casualty figures until we start seeing reports that quote officials from the affected countries.
Weasel phrases such as "N feared dead" don't really add much, whereas phrases such as "officials are reporting N dead" are more authoritative.
At this moment, it seems officials are only confirming around 3,000 dead, even though many more are feared dead.
Although the Reuters report of 6,300 dead, (by Simon Gardner) is appearing on a lot of local town newspaper sites, his number doesn't match with the numbers I've seen in many other reports by equally respectable news reporting outlets, so I think that number is an outlier for now. (Reuters numbers may be proved correct in a short time, once more officials weigh in with their assessments.)
So, I recommend that once there are more officials on the record with casualty figures, we should then update our numbers as well.
— DV 15:49, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- What we really need is authoritive sources for these figures. Probably government sites for each affected nation. The figures are likely to rise obscenely in the next couple of days, especially in Sri Lanka. Then it will be compunded as disease breaks out due to lack of food and drinkable water. --BenM 09:02, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Comment from 220.127.116.11
SOMALIA DEAD YOU FORGETTTTTTTT !
- No, we haven't forgotten, but this is a news site and this particular disaster is is worthy of articles. If you want to focus on Somalia, or any other crisis as there are certainly plenty, then there's nothing stopping you. --BenM 09:07, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- I think the commenter was remarking that Somalia also experienced deaths from the tsunami waves, as some news organizations are reporting. I will add this to the article. -- IlyaHaykinson 09:16, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Ah, okay, I thought it was a comment about existing situations in Somalia and other African countries. Especially since the comment was initially placed up the top of the discussion page. --BenM 12:34, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Better yet, start a new article. People are likely to skip over this one as "already read". Davodd 01:49, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)
the degree we can embrace input from any country, any person who can get to a computer, no matter how familiar with the conventions, is the degree this site will make its mark. kudos to the collaborative response to this reporter, 18.104.22.168... now let's do him justice and update this article. this event underscored the importance of this project. if anyone working on it can think of a way to break down the work and parse it out to people that want to help, like me, but don't know where to begin, say so here. it's time to update the casualties. real-time is attainable so let's prove it, wikans
Tech Note: Animated GIFs cannot be scaled
For editors of this article - although the animated "tsunami" image is a bit large, please don't try to scale the animated GIF with a "thumb" modifier. Animated GIFs don't work correctly in Mozilla FireFox when they are scaled.
If there are any serious objections to the size, it will have to be re-created at a smaller size and then re-uploaded to the Commons. — DV 06:55, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Davodd, you list many things above that could be done to improve the article. Please, contribute and help our coverage! Lyellin 01:50, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Follow up on Davodd's suggestions
Although I am not yet skilled enough to effectively follow up on all of Davodd's suggestions (I'm not a professional journalist - I hope Davodd will help us!), I think I can at least help out with some of his suggestions, starting with his suggestion that our readers would be better served by having a number of smaller articles when a large story has multiple angles that need to be covered. (Over on Wikipedia they seem to be stuck on one monolithic article as well.)
To get started, would there be any objections to moving the humanitarian assistance sections into a separate article?
— DV 04:06, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- I don't think we gain anything by doing that now- it's basically jsut saying "this is too big, let's split". How about if some new organization donates a lot, or some other headline happens (Thailand puts death tottals higher than last expected), we write that article instead. Lyellin 04:15, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- This is generally what I've been doing, adding little articles from time to time. I strongly recommend that others do the same from now on. The main article should still be kept up to date (I will post that note about categories and topic pages later tonight, honest; it's half-written), but that should happen as a reaction to the individual articles, in my opinion. -- IlyaHaykinson 04:32, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not a primary source
Ral315 recently updated the casualty table and cited Wikipedia.
However, Wikipedia is not a primary source that can be used as the sole citation (senior editors on Wikipedia make that point quite often).
Shouldn't we instead rely on confirmed reporting from news organizations that are in direct contact with the officials of the affected countries?
— DV 06:03, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Yes, yes, and yes. sj
donation information out of date
The amounts of money donated by the various countries seems to be out of date. In particular, according to  the US has now pledged $35m and the UK $29m
- Updated the UK value GregRobson 22:53, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I would say clarifying the source and its release date would be helpful for that. Tomos 23:07, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Link to the help page at the top?
I don't want to go messing "above the fold" without getting a second opinion first... would it be good to put something near the top stating something along these lines?
For information regarding persons that are/missing found, helpline numbers, ways to donate and other constantly updated information visit the Tsunami Help page.
If this seems like a sound idea to somebody else could you put this (or some variant) near the top of the page in a way so that it stands out. I know you are meant to be bold with Wikis but I thought that as I only signed up today I'd better check first. Thanks. GregRobson 23:04, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Okay, I tried. Here is the diff: 
Tomos 23:21, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Thanks, I think that's better worded that what I had. With any luck the Tsunami Help page will get a few more hits and should improve more rapidly GregRobson 07:39, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Where is a link to the much-praised wikipedia compilation on the same subject? That is regularly mentioned by third parties as the best source for an uptodate detailed history of the event, but I don't see it linked from the news report. _sj_
tsunami conspiracy theory
I found the first conspiracy theory.... http://www.vialls.com/subliminalsuggestion/tsunami.html
I don't even want to start to think it might be true, but I give the link because I think it might be a challenge for experts to refute this story.
Please change Cateogry:India in Category:India. Marshaü 07:31, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
- I will do it this time, but you can change it too by clicking "edit" at the top of the page. -- NGerda 07:34, July 10, 2005 (UTC)
- Oh, I see. Thanks for the clarification, Ilya! -- NGerda 07:36, July 10, 2005 (UTC)
Images from commonns
Image:745px-Harta Ocean Indian Quake.png needs to be deleted! Have a look at http://www.juelich.de/avatar/check-usage/check-usage.php?saved=Q704Pq6T8a please some are blocked! further contact commons:User:Paddy --22.214.171.124 01:21, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
- Got it. Thanks, NGerda 01:26, August 31, 2005 (UTC)
WAT r u on?????
hi my name is jacinta and this web site needs to be more undastandin lol it doesnt make sense n i cant read it lol hhhhhhheeeeeeeeellllllppp
Comment from 126.96.36.199
I'm from Indonesia. I'am so sad. That tsunami is remember us to God to prey more. Thank you!!