Talk:2014 South Napa earthquake

Images
Do NOT add any images you have not taken yourself, or that were not posted on the internet with clearly identified free license. ANY photos from news agencies are copyrighted, and unless the SPECIFIC IMAGE ITSELF instantly becomes the subject of discussion, we cannot even use them for fair use. posting such an image on an active story like this is an act of copyright piracy, opening us up to a legal challenge from the author of the photo, and is not a trivial matter. As a Bay Arean, i could drive up there in about 2 hours and take a photo. this is not an old historic event with no further chance of image documentation. we will shortly have hundreds of photos of the damage from Wikipedians and other thoughtful posters. Any copyrighted images on this topic will be speedily deleted, here or at the Commons. the only debates on this will be if there is a question of whether a specific image is free use or not (an Associated Press copyright is a dead giveaway that its not), or the highly unlikely case that an iconic image is taken and becomes the "face" of the story.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 17:40, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Article move?
USGS is now calling it the "South Napa Earthquake" in one press release and some news articles have used that title as well. Should we rename this article? Sailsbystars (talk) 21:44, 24 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Agreed. Moved to South Napa per the USGS name for the event. -- Margl (talk) 23:55, 24 August 2014 (UTC)


 * I disagree as this asserts that a primary source has more weight than WP:COMMONNAME.—John Cline (talk) 01:11, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Although most news sources are saying vague things like "the earthquake that hit Napa", those that give it a proper name seem to be favoring "South Napa Earthquake", as verified by a Google News search. By the way, I live in American Canyon near the epicenter, and have been inundated with news coverage yesterday and today. I think the name works because it hit southern Napa County hardest, and the epicenter was located south of the city of Napa. Cullen328  Let's discuss it  02:24, 26 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Right now if you Google, California, "Northern California earthquake" is the top series of hits. "Northern California earthquake" has 1,220,000 hits whereas "South Napa earthquake" has 187,000 hits. Either way we should ultimately name our article per wp:commonname regardless of the name given by the primary source, in my opinion.—John Cline (talk) 02:44, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Those Google hits you mention could lead to coverage of the 1906 quake or the 1989 quake, or any of the many other quakes that have hit Northern California in the past few centuries. "South Napa earthquake" describes the area impacted concisely while "Northern California Earthquake" describes a vastly larger area, and it would be foolish to give that title to this article. Any reliable source describing the quake in any detail would use much more targeted descriptions, though they may include the phrase "Northern California" in their coverage if writing for an international audience. I challenge you to produce a single reliable source that calls this quake "The Northern California Earthquake" as if that is its accepted name. Cullen328  Let's discuss it  05:27, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
 * This coverage from ABC News, for example, uses "N. California Earthquake" generically in the headline but explicitly calls it the "South Napa Earthquake" (capitalized) in the body of the article. Cullen328  Let's discuss it  05:36, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
 * California Governor Jerry Brown called it the "South Napa Earthquake" in his official emergency declaration, widely reported in the press. Cullen328  Let's discuss it  05:47, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
 * This article in the San Jose Mercury News, published about 80 miles away, specifically mentions that "South Napa Earthquake" is emerging as the accepted name. And I am listening to KTVU TV News right now, where they discussed at great length that the damage was much worse in the south than in the northern Napa Valley, where damage was negligible. Cullen328  Let's discuss it  05:55, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Here's Canadian TV coverage, using "South Napa Earthquake" in its headline, and saying (and accepting) that's how it is "dubbed". Cullen</b><sup style="color:#707">328  Let's discuss it  06:11, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I think you are correct and this title will probably be the common name used. My comment was not to advocate for another title, but to say we should choose our title by wp:commonname and not simply what the primary source calls it. Cheers.—John Cline (talk) 06:34, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

fire in mobile home park
As currently written, the article does not make it clear what caused the fire. Readers might want to know whether the earthquake caused the fire or simple impeded its suppression. —Stepheng3 (talk) 16:43, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Not ready for GA
This article suffers from the fact–source, fact–source style of writing. It's choppy and doesn't read well. The style applies to both the lead and the body, with no attempt to preview the body in the way that the lead is supposed to. It's also short on broad coverage and little information about the earthquake itself. Dawnseeker2000 23:46, 29 August 2015 (UTC)


 * The review was done and there were a number of areas listed for improvement. Several months ago I refined the lead, added the tectonic setting section, and made some minor changes to the remainder of the body, but I think that it needs a rewrite (from the earthquake section down) for it to be presentable. Balance needs to be considered. Why, for example, is the earthquake warning section disproportionately large? No need to answer; I'm just thinking out loud. I may continue working on it. Dawnseeker2000 20:40, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Deprecated?
Which documentation?--193.163.223.192 (talk) 22:45, 19 April 2018 (UTC)