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)