User talk:Waitak
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Contents |
[edit] Natural disaster
Hi, I had a look at Natural disaster again, I saw it got a major revamp again today. You asked for my opinion, and if it was up to A again. My conclusion would be .. not yet, but getting there (though I realise that it is in a similar state as when it acquired A-status; I have also asked Martin Walker to have a look at it).
When going through the article it occurs to me, that it could as well be called natural hazard, which is not the same. I am working in a chemical lab, and there the chance on a 'disaster' is defined as the product of 'the hazard of a project' and 'the chance of it happening' (the chance I cut myself on a piece of glass is big, but the hazard can be considered low (as long as cuts are not in arteries), the chance of me blowing up a reaction with sodium azide is small (I hardly use it, try to avoid it, and using my knowledge I apply extra safety measures, take more care and avoid dangerous situations), but the hazard is huge (explosions cause a lot of damage, even on laboratory scale)) .. to me that is not yet clear from the article. The intro sentence would not be correct, technically, both the hazard as the chance can be influenced by people, so there may be a third factor there, and a disaster taking place in a place where no people live is still a disaster for wildlife (but it may be that the definition is different). As an example: another ice-age would be a big hazard (I would give it a 8 or 9 on a scale of 1-10), but the chance of happening is very small .. Hence, not really something to worry about. Also things to consider in the article may be predictability of hazards etc. I think it would be good if the article would elaborate on this a bit more (though I already see it is going to be controversial). I'll keep an eye open, the page is on my watchlist. --Dirk Beetstra T C 11:13, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
- I was asked to comment on this, and this is appropriate as I was the one who tagged it as A in the first place. My standards have probably gone up a little since then, but the article still appeals to me a great deal. I think the topic is very unusual, and as such it's very difficult to judge. This is because it is a broad topic, but not in the sense that Humanities is a broad topic - rather, it is a collection of very specific, fairly narrow topics. I felt at the time I tagged it as A that this article covered listy topics so much better than most, so I wanted it to stand out a little as a model to follow.
- I like the way the article looks now, a definite improvement. But Dirk has pointed out some definite omissions that I hadn't thought of, such as the use of Hazard analysis to assess chances. That article covers avionics, but in fact we use the same method on a chemical plant (we call it HAZAN); roughly speaking hazard = (seriousness) x (probability). Thus flooding of London was considered unlikely, yet they built the Thames barrage because the potential damage would be immense if it happened (think Katrina x 20). Perception of disaster is important, as it shapes public policy. When a train crashes and 100 people are killed there are government inquiries and new safety laws, but when 100 people die in a week on the roads in 100 separate incidents, this is just put down to a hazard of the roads; the result is that in the UK at least, the spend to save a life on the trains is many times the spend to save a life on the roads. The related topics of disaster prevention and emergency management should probably be included as part of that section.
- Dirk also points out the wider social aspects of perception of disaster - also a great point - things like a disaster being punishment from the Gods, fate, etc. (even in our own times, see David Edward Jenkins, see 2nd paragraph). You could add a section on the use as an artistic device in genres such as the Disaster film, but this would have to be worded carefully in summary style to prevent everyone adding their favourite movie to the article! Finally, the article should have more references - our expectations in this area are going up. With all that, it would get an A from me again! Sorry if it seems like I'm adding a lot, but Dirk got me thinking, and it will make a great article! Thanks for all your work, Walkerma 06:22, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Re: vegetable oils, new to Wikipedia, and Botryococcus braunii article
Bobkeyes 21:15, 6 November 2006 (UTC) Thanks for the encouragement. Like you have noted, I am new to Wikipedia as a contributor. I am still learning the ropes. I am thankful for your hints. I will try to find a way to rephrase the Berzin entry better. I am happy you think that the Botryococcus braunii article is of decent quality. Learning to cite, and making the effort to cite, is important for a Wikipedia editor. I believe it is the only way that an article, and Wikipedia, can be taken seriously by scientific community. It is also useful for keeping one's own mind straight and honest on the topic.
[edit] Missing CfDs
I had encountered an edit conflict, and I thought I had combined everything back together. Sorry, thanks for making the correction and for letting me know that I screwed up. Alansohn 15:44, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Re:Essays
I'll keep an eye on them, but in the case of consistent anon vandalism/reverts it's best to ask for semi-protection. Cheers, -- Vision Thing -- 20:02, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Daniel
- A little humor never hurt no one. (And yeah, that double negative was intentional ^_^). *waves goodbye as I head to Spain* Danny Lilithborne 03:49, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
