User talk:Rao.anirudh

Tunnel vision

There have been some issues with changing the magnitude of some of our earthquake articles.

) The figures in the articles are duplicated, when possible, into related lists and templates. We want to have a cohesive statement about each event; not a disparate one
) The magnitude is sometimes listed in more places than just the infobox. Sometimes when the magnitude is stated in the text, it's for explanatory reasons, and when you change the figure in the infobox, the article now contradicts itself and/or leaves that explanation an orphan
) The USGS is a fine organization, but their studies of individual events is usually limited and that means that use of them as a source is not always preferred.

Thank you, Dawnseeker2000 00:29, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello and thank you for letting me know about this. I've been adding the USGS event page links to the infoboxes of articles on pre-1900 earthquakes in the United States, eg. ushis13, since these were missing. Over the last year, the USGS has revised the magnitude estimates and locations for many of these historical events based on recent published research. For the 1783 New Jersey earthquake, the revised magnitude estimate of Mfa 5.1 comes from Sykes et al. (2008) [ref below], updating the older Mfa 5.3 estimate by Stover and Coffman (1993) that was/is cited in the Wikipedia article for the event. The updated event catalog of Sykes et al. (2008) leaves the location for the 1783 event unchanged from Stover and Coffman (1993).

I agree with your comment that the USGS should not be blindly preferred as a source. The JMA and the INGV would be more authoritative sources for earthquakes in Japan and Italy for instance. However, for the 1783 New Jersey event, the article was already referring to a USGS reference for the Mfa 5.3 magnitude estimate, which has now been revised to Mfa 5.1 by the USGS. Perhaps the cited reference should be updated too, to Sykes et al. (2008).

As you've rightly noted, to keep the articles internally consistent, the text may need revisions in some cases when new information is added to the infobox section, to ensure one part of the article doesn't contradict another. Happy to address this, and I'll be more careful when making future edits!

Ref: Sykes, L.R.; Armbruster, J.G.; Kim, W-Y.; Seeber,L. (2008). Observations and Tectonic Setting of Historic and Instrumentally Located Earthquakes in the Greater New York City-Philadelphia Area. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, 98(4), 1696-1719.

--Anirudh Rao 09:21, 2 June 2020 (UTC)