Talk:2010 Kalgoorlie–Boulder earthquake
Appearance
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the 2010 Kalgoorlie–Boulder 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 was nominated for deletion on 12 September 2010 (UTC). The result of the discussion was keep. |
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Richter scale
[edit]In regards to this anon edit the 5.0 recorded by Geoscience Australia is the Richter magnitude scale (See the note on this article: http://www.sott.net/articles/show/207137-Australia-Earthquake-magnitude-5-2-hits-Kalgoorlie ) and is the default since it is the figure used in Australia (like °C for temperatures in Australia) and not the Moment magnitude scale. Bidgee (talk) 21:38, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
- Greetings Bidgee. None of the references mention a Richter magnitude measurement. All simply say 5.0 or 5.2 magnitude without qualification. It is my understanding that the Moment magnitude is the accepted standard for earthquakes of this size around the world—I have never heard that Australia still uses the superseded system of seismic measurement (can you provide a reference for otherwise? ) and so think it a fair assumption that this is the scale quoted. The comment at the bottom of the sott.net page is confusing to me, and I'm not sure that it supports your argument anyway, besides I would hardly put that up as a reliable source, nor any media site when discussing a scientific measurement (Magnitudes are still widely stated on the Richter scale in the mass media, although usually moment magnitudes—numerically about the same—are actually given). The reality is that an earthquake around 5 would have the same value on both scales, so you could say the argument is moot, but as said, Richter is not mentioned in the sources, so why muddy the waters by mentioning it? Early reports of earthquakes often have errors of up to 0.5 in the magnitude measurements. Accuracy improves as more data becomes available and is analysed (such analysis can take up to a week) and therefore it is common for early news reports to quote figures which differ from the USGS database. This may explain the 5.0/5.2 variation between sources. 124.182.43.137 (talk) 14:31, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
- This source does state it but have emailed Geoscience Australia in regards with the 5.0. Bidgee (talk) 14:47, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
- This link confirms that the 5.0 is local magnitude (Richter), which is quite normal for smaller events (on a global scale) - for events over 7, the moment magnitude scale is needed to accurately represent the energy release. Mikenorton (talk) 22:21, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
Dead link
[edit]During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!
- http://earthquake.usgs.gov/earthquakes/recenteqsww/Quakes/us2010vhab.php
- In Earthquakes in Western Australia on 2011-03-17 20:04:40, 404 Not Found
- In 2010 Kalgoorlie-Boulder earthquake on 2011-06-18 14:51:04, 404 Not Found
Categories:
- Start-Class Australia articles
- Low-importance Australia articles
- Start-Class Western Australia articles
- Low-importance Western Australia articles
- WikiProject Western Australia articles
- WikiProject Australia articles
- Start-Class WikiProject Earthquakes articles
- Low-importance WikiProject Earthquakes articles
- WikiProject Earthquakes articles