Talk:1992 Cape Mendocino earthquakes

Untitled

I am creating this talk page for this article. Av9 (talk) 02:45, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Source

I've just added a good amount of content to the article. The only source supporting the damage section is a masters thesis. The paper is well done, is comprehensive, has it's own sources, and does not make any extraordinary claims. There are other scholarly sources in the article that corroborate what is being said in the university paper. I found two other newspaper articles that I was considering using for that section, but they were more news-storyish and did not have the continuity or the depth that this paper does. Dawnseeker2000 22:15, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Cleanup tags

I see a very big content addition to the article but I also see some problems in the expansion, so I just added some clean up tags to the article hoping that Dawnseeker2000 will be back to tidy up after their recent large edit.

Examples of why the tags were added include but are not limited to:

Lack of citations: (e.g.) "The speed a tsunami travels is directly related to the depth of the water in which it is traversing." "While the waves generated by the earthquake were limited, the event demonstrated the rapid onset of tsunami hazards, giving little time for coastal residents to prepare."

Possible OR statements: "but comparisons with other subduction zones have lead to a belief that the convergence may be taking place aseismically." "the distinct lack of interplate events there has generated contention" (by whom?), "would have lowered the risk had the surges had a destructive capacity..." " but it is possible to be just the opposite where the first waves could be the strongest. "

Inaccessible citation: The citation for the section on the tsunami, " F. I. González et. al", is to an article behind a paywall so it is impossible to tell if the items cited it in are there or not without a costly membership. I'd suggest using something more accessible so others can read the source.

Citation lost: The Furlong paper seems to have utterly vanished, which is a shame, as it has lovely maps and a great explanation of the conditions and the event. At the same time, the new citation format is ponderously cumbersome for such a short and relatively trivial article.

Locations lost: Honeydew, California was lost entirely despite being heavily damaged and listed in the article before this rewrite. Point Arena, California was lost even though it recorded the tsunami (see older version of the page). The various distant locations at which the shocks were felt was also removed from this iteration of the article despite being useful information that was previously included.

Logical inconsistency: "A large fire was triggered following the first aftershock at a shopping center in Scotia that destroyed four businesses, with the resulting damage at that site alone estimated at $15 million, and was the largest financial misfortune of the sequence of earthquakes. The water supply in Rio Dell was terminated when the water main was severed at the abutment to the Eel River bridge and power outages were widespread throughout Humboldt County. Some were mere seconds while others lasted for hours, but the hydroelectric plant's performance at Ruth Reservoir was deemed acceptable, and power that was not generated locally was unaffected.[10] The number of injured for the three events was 356 and damage estimates were as high as $66 million, one third of which was due to bridges and roads, and the remainder of the costs was structure related." Losses to bridges and roads was approximately $22 million, higher than the $15 million "largest financial misfortune." Which of these would be the greater financial loss needs resolution. The first sentence (A large fire was...) sounds like Charles Dickens, with the commas and the run-on concepts. Certain words including "and" are considered weak starts to any sentence, as their use implies that information is missing. "Eel river" has been in that format throughout except in this section where it is "Eel River." Emotional words including "terminated", "severed", "performance" and "deemed" are not usually found in unemotional damage reports. I sense some close paraphrasing to the cite master's thesis in the section, and recommend a careful rewrite of this entire section.

Wikilinking: The wikilinking at present is most confusing and needs attention. Arcata, California is blue linked twice. Eureka, California is not blue linked at all. Petrolia, California and Mendocino Triple Junction are not wiki-linked in the lede, but other places are. The links one would expect at first usage, are sometimes further down in the article, sometimes - as in the case of Eureka - missing entirely.

The remainder of the article tends to the technical side. I presume the last editor has a geology degree, but would remind every editor (as I remind myself constantly) to edit for the newcomer to the topic, not stray off into long batches of unexplained technical jargon.Ellin Beltz (talk) 08:01, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Hello Ellin Beltz, I found a small portion of your review helpful. Thank you, but you may find this response a bit brusque.

First, let me say that the article's paragraphs each have one or more references. None of the new content is uncited. The article's sourcing has improved dramatically and the citation style is simple, elegant, and allows the reader to easily find the article and page number(s) that support the text. (My work on WP often entails finding and removing copyright violations)

There are some small fixes that can be made, and I can continue to make changes as I see them, as any editor can, but I do not think the prose warrants a cleanup tag. The article is going to be somewhat technical because of the nature of describing earthquakes. The previous version was not complete and I simply finished telling the story. There is no reason that the article shouldn't explain the processes in a technical fashion. If you want a more understandable version, copy the previous version, make any appropriate changes, and post it on the simple Wikipedia. There is nothing there now.

Please do not remove the Gonzalez & Satake source and the material that it supports. That is probably the best source available for the tsunami-related portion of the story. Suggesting that it be replaced with something more accessible is, I think, bad advice. There's no reason that our earthquake articles should not be based on journal articles and books. That you suggested such a thing probably means that we're from different planets and we are not going to see eye to eye on this, so if you don't mind, this may be my only communication about this. I fell into working on earthquake articles and discovered that I really enjoy doing it. One reason that makes it enjoyable is because there are usually very few controversies regarding these articles. I don't want to be going back and forth about this. I have created a comprehensive, completely cited article and that's all I want to do. Defending it does not interest me.

Thanks for listening, Dawnseeker2000 01:23, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

98% in Fortuna?!

With 98 percent of the homes experiencing some form of damage, the city of Fortuna experienced losses totaling $3.8 million.

As a citizen of Fortuna at the time, the 98% number strikes me as absurd. 9.8%, maybe… but there's no way Fortuna experienced as much damage as Ferndale or Scotia. What's the source for that figure?

Thanks for pointing this out. I double checked the passage that I wrote several months ago and compared it with the ref, and found that I completely mangled the statement. I've corrected it now, and I'm glad that you spotted that and said something. Thanks, Dawnseeker2000 02:48, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:1992 Cape Mendocino earthquakes/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Caponer (talk · contribs) 11:27, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Dawnseeker2000, I look forward to reviewing this article thoroughly in the coming days. Please let me know if you have any questions or concerns in the meantime. Thank you again for all your outstanding work! -- Caponer (talk) 11:27, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Hi Caponer, I will be available to respond to requests as I am able to check WP intermittently throughout the day. I wanted to describe my style of putting articles together: What I do is paraphrase the sources and simply leave the citation at the end of each paragraph. That simply means that all of the content is covered by one of the paragraph-ending references. The sources that I typically use are very dense and this enable large volumes of text that can be generated using that style. Thanks for stopping by and saying hello, Dawnseeker2000 13:57, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
It is reasonably well written. a (prose, no copyvios, spelling and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): It is factually accurate and verifiable. a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): It is broad in its coverage. a (major aspects): b (focused): It follows the neutral point of view policy. Fair representation without bias: It is stable. No edit wars, etc.: It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate. a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Overall: Pass/Fail:
· · ·

Dawnseeker2000, I apologize for the prolonged review, but I wanted to inform you that I have finished a comprehensive review of your article! It looks good to go for Good Article status, but I have shared a few issues below that I need to be addressed before proceeding. Please let me know if you have any questions or concerns in the meantime. Thank you again for your extraordinary work! -- Caponer (talk) 11:48, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Lead

• Wiki-link Petrolia, California in the first paragraph, and Scotia, California in the second paragraph.  Done
• I have no further comments regarding the lead, as I think sufficiently summarizes the entirety of the article's prose below.

Tectonic setting

• In the first paragraph, fifty should probably written as 50.  Done
• In the first paragraph, mya should probably be wiki-linked to the myr article, just in case they are unaware of the term.  Done
• In the second paragraph, I'd suggest adding a comma after "North of the Mendocino Triple Junction".  Done
• I have no further comments regarding this section. You've done a beautiful job of illustrating the geologic history to provide a comprehensive background to the earthquake events.

Earthquakes

• Cascadia subduction zone should be written consistently throughout the article's prose. I'd decide whether you want it capitalized throughout, or "subduction zone" in lower case throughout.  Done
• No further comments for this lead section--again, beautifully written.

Damage

• It is not necessary to wiki-link Scotia in the first paragraph, as it is linked above.  Done
• Wiki-link Ferndale in this section as its the first usage within the text.  Done
• In the first paragraph, I'd add a comma after Fortuna.  Done
• Was the city's gymnasium destroyed, or the gym?  Done
• Wiki-link American Red Cross in the last paragraph.  Done
• Out of curiosity, who assessed the damage in the unincorporated communities of Weott and Carlotta? Since they did not have municipal governments of their own, did the county government or county services step in and assess the damage?

The Red Cross supplied the figures for the overall number of damaged or destroyed apartments, homes, and businesses for the whole county. O'brien cites the May 1 and May 3 issues of the Eureka Times-Standard for the losses at Ferndale, but no specific citation given for the paragraph that contains details about the damage in Eureka, Arcata, Weott, and Carlotta

• No further comments for this section. This is a thorough write-up on the totality of damage caused by the quakes.

Strong motion

• Side note: Are there any plans to draft an article on the California Strong Motion Instrumentation Program? I'm sure that would definitely make for a Good Article, too!

I have definitely thought about it. For a start, something might be added to the California Department of Conservation or California Geological Survey articles (parent agencies) about that program.

• No further comments for this section.

Ground effects

• For consistency's sake, I'd add internal commas to 1,700, 3,000, and 5,000.  Done
• No further comments for this section.

Tsunami

• I suggested spelling out National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration in its first usage.  Done
• No further comments for this section.

Other events

• No comments for this section.

Dawnseeker2000, I hereby pass this article to Good Article status! You have sufficiently addressed all my above questions, comments, and concerns, so it is my pleasure to pass this article. You have done a phenomenal job researching and writing this article, and I commend you on your continued contributions to Wikipedia! -- Caponer (talk) 15:18, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Response

Thanks for the very thorough review Caponer. Finding and fixing those minor inconsistencies and style issues are what's great about submitting articles for good article review. More eyes on the articles makes for overall improvements. Speaking of which, I should acknowledge an earlier review by another user that was also helpful for suggesting some things that improved the article. I have posted the suggested changes and even added a bit of missing information about damage in Petrolia. Dawnseeker2000 19:49, 24 May 2014 (UTC)