Talk:1933 Long Beach earthquake

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Mysch00lacc0unt2018.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 16:31, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 30 August 2021 and 22 December 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Marysarkis, Mkatsaro, Diegolarrea02, Raomes. Peer reviewers: Zoeroros, Huzmir1014, 2003la, Amoreland22, Andrewyi17, Emilyhg.371, Will Mullally, Gailelliott, John.heuver, Akipar.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 16:31, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Kaymarie. Peer reviewers: Kellyhunt.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 12:58, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Move proposal
Should probably be moved to 1933 Long Beach earthquake, since that's the format we seem to be using. And what, if anything is "made land"? The sentence doesn't make sense to me...--Rockero 22:57, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Fatalities
Both 115 & 120 appear in the article. 115 - usgs; 116 - Time; 120 - www.scec.org & www.consrv.ca.gov Emargie (talk) 01:37, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Epicentre
According to the USGS page on this event, we are currently using the SCSN location on the location map and the ICS-GEM location elsewhere in the infobox. We should probably choose one of them, even if the difference is fairly small (17 km). The location it was recently changed to was incorrect, based on the SCEDC page, in terms of decimal degrees (should have been 33.617N, 117.967W) - I'm also not sure why there is a discrepancy between SCEDC and SCSN (about 3.5 km). Mikenorton (talk) 10:08, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Both the SCEDC and SCSN locations match with the surface trace of the Newport-Inglewood Fault Zone as mapped. As there is strong evidence that this fault ruptured during the earthquake (e.g. ), that would be a good reason on this occasion for going with the SCSN epicentre, rather than the ICS-GEM. Mikenorton (talk) 12:58, 7 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the feedback. I was certainly OK with the anonymous contributor sharing their thoughts as well, but I wish that editors would not use the word 'wrong' when these things come up. After I took some time to place each set of coordinates in Google Earth, it was easy to see how different the proposed epicenters are. The ISC set is the furthest offshore, while Stover & Coffman, NGDC, and the SCEDC are much closer in. The results of Hauksson & Gross 1991 are the only coordinates that aren't out over the water. Seeing as ISC is the outlier, and by quite a bit, it does make sense to reel this in a bit. I know the BSSA has more papers on this event (not necessarily newer) but I haven't looked at them. OK to switch to the terrestrial coords? Dawnseeker2000  02:02, 8 April 2016 (UTC)


 * I think that the SCSN coordinates used by the USGS are probably the most reasonable. The main thing about Hauksson and Gross 1991 is that it shows which fault caused the earthquake, not so sure about using their epicentre. As you say probably best to check out more recent seismological papers. I'm currently travelling so don't have a huge amount of time to put to this. Mikenorton (talk) 10:22, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
 * The SCEDC catalogue gives 33.631 -117.999, so no discrepancy. Mikenorton (talk) 17:48, 8 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Was ready to align the coords to the USGS/SCSEDC catalog figures, and just about to hit save, but I looked at this again in Google Earth. Still had the various coords plugged in from yesterday, but I turned on the Quaternary faults overlay to get a fuller picture. This was quite revealing. With several strands of the Dana Point section of the Newport-Inglewood-Rose Canyon Fault Zone about 1 km to the SW, the SCEDC coordinates align very nicely with the USGS' fault trace, as Hauksson & Gross 1991 indicate (in the abstract) that the fault dips 80° to the northeast. This is pretty unbeatable, as the remainder of the coords that were looked at are a little bit further to the north of the fault traces. I hope that sits well with you; I never did take a look at any of the other papers on this. Was nice today, so went for a walk after work instead. Thanks 132.239.121.223. I've converted the SCEDC coords (33° 37' N, 117° 58' W) to decimal degrees (33.62, -117.97) and placed them in the article.  Dawnseeker2000  05:14, 9 April 2016 (UTC)


 * After having looked at this yet again, I discovered that I goofed the other day because I was looking at the USGS' quaternary fault trace rather than the historical trace. The USGS / SCEDC catalog coords are at the very southern end of the trace. This aligns with Hauksson & Gross, as they indicate that the rupture propagated to the north. So, I've switched to the USGS / SCEDC catalog coords, which I should've done in the first place. Stover & Coffman also align pretty good, but the SCEDC coords that were provided by the anonymous user were the most southerly of the group, and were roughly 5 km south of where the USGS historical trace terminates. OK, I think I'm done fumbling through this, and thanks for the assistance! Dawnseeker2000  17:52, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

Plans for adding information to article, ENG 002
In the Article 1933 Long Beach Earthquake, I noticed that this document is very short. There are only three sections with content including the introduction, Damage, and aftermath. I would like to add more content within these sections and add more sections, including consequential damage (fires, etc.), response efforts, construction after the damage, and history of earth quakes in that region. There is only one picture that shows the damage that the earthquake had on the city. I would like to add some before and after visuals for the reader to look at so they can better understand the damage and any other photos I can find of the incident that demonstrate the impact it had on the community.

Sources: 1. Johnson, Daniel J. "Long Beach." Dictionary of American History, edited by Stanley I. Kutler, 3rd ed., vol. 5, Charles Scribner's Sons, 2003, pp. 148-149. Gale Virtual Reference Library, http://link.galegroup.com.butte.idm.oclc.org/apps/doc/CX3401802428/GVRL?u=orov49112&sid=GVRL&xid=e6ad4d1f. Accessed 25 Feb. 2018.

2. "Earthquakes." Weather Almanac, edited by Richard A. Wood, 11th ed., vol. 1, Gale, 2004, pp. [227]-240. Gale Virtual Reference Library, http://link.galegroup.com.butte.idm.oclc.org/apps/doc/CX3409500017/GVRL?u=orov49112&sid=GVRL&xid=3db3cabc. Accessed 25 Feb. 2018.

3. "Natural Disasters." Gale Encyclopedia of Everyday Law, edited by Donna Batten, 3rd ed., vol. 2: Health Care to Travel, Gale, 2013, pp. 915-918. Gale Virtual Reference Library, http://link.galegroup.com.butte.idm.oclc.org/apps/doc/CX2760300189/GVRL?u=orov49112&sid=GVRL&xid=882319ce. Accessed 25 Feb. 2018.

4. RONG-GONG, LIN II. “Southern California's Deadliest Quake May Have Been Caused by Oil Drilling, Study Says.” Los Angeles Times, Los Angeles Times, 31 Aug. 2016, www.latimes.com/local/la-me-ln-oil-drilling-earthquake-20161031-story.html.

5. “The Long Beach Earthquake of 1933.” Los Angeles Times, Los Angeles Times, 2018, www.latimes.com/local/la-me-longbeach_1933earthquake-pg-photogallery.html.

Kaymarie (talk) 03:20, 26 February 2018 (UTC)kaymarie


 * Sounds like you understand Wikipedia, please go ahead! —hike395 (talk) 04:12, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

New Changes Made to this Article
Hello, I just wanted to note that I made some edits to this article. I reworded the intro paragraph, and added content and sources to the damages and aftermath section of the article. I'm very open to feedback so any suggestions are welcomed!

Thank you Kaymarie (talk) 06:40, 2 April 2018 (UTC)kaymarie