Talk:2008 Chino Hills earthquake

FOX News

There is no damage. Why is this a big deal on Fox news?--Xxhopingtearsxx (talk) 19:22, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Because it's Fox News and now they don't have to report as much on Ted Stevens? Just a thought, since you asked. Moncrief (talk) 22:09, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

CBC News is reporting minor damage and evacuation for fear of aftershocks.Davidyz (talk) 19:41, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Los Angeles versus Chino Hills

This earthquake did NOT occur in Los Angeles, so the title should be Chino Hills Earthquake. The Northridge earthquake was not called "Los Angeles Earthquake" so why is this one being titled that? I think the title needs to be changed. 75.47.164.158 (talk) 20:35, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

We don't decide, really. All news reports are referring to this as an LA quake. If they change, the article can be moved. --Elliskev 20:42, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

It was Southwest of Chino Hills, which I think puts it in LA County. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.168.21.194 (talk) 20:56, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Southwest would put it on the San Bernardino/Orange County/Riverside border. Local news is calling it Chino Hills Earthquake, national news is calling it LA. I think Chino Hills is more correct.75.47.164.158 (talk) 21:01, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

• KTTV Fox 11 Los Angeles is now referring to this quake as the Chino Hills Earthquake.--Subman758 (talk) 21:08, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree with this. Northridge is even IN Los Angeles (inside the city limits), and it's not called the Los Angeles earthquake of 1994. I have no doubt the name will be changed here soon, but someone should go ahead and do it if they have the will. "Los Angeles earthquake" definitely sounds like it was a name thought up by someone who doesn't live anywhere near L.A. Moncrief (talk) 21:11, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree, I would understand if this were the "big one" and titling it LA QUAKE, but it clearly wasnt, and most of the damage was not anywhere near Los Angeles proper.75.47.164.158 (talk) 21:14, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Would someone request this to be moved to an admin. I will try. If an admin is in here, would you redirect this to 2008 Chino Hills earthquake. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rorry1 (talk • contribs) 21:21, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

I moved it to 2008 Chino Hills Earthquake. The lowercase "e" for earthquake is an existing article, and I cant get a hold of an admin to move it. If an admin comes here, please move this article to 2008 Chino Hills earthquake.Rorry1 (talk) 21:24, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the move. :) Cheers. Rorry1 (talk) 21:35, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

It's okay if we print an article on some obscure swimming world's record, but not worth mentioning when a natural event effects the lives of tens of millions of people? Keep it. --Diggerjohn111 (talk) 00:51, 30 July 2008 (UTC)Diggerjohn111 7/30/2008

Print? Wikipedia ain't a newspaper :) The best place for your comments, though, is WP:AfD/2008 Chino Hills earthquake. --BG (talk) 06:34, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm new to this aspect (editing and discussion) of Wikipedia. But I am very well acquainted with Southern California earthquakes, the Emergency Response systems within California, and the accuracy or lack there of in the media following these events. First, I would like to say that yes this is important enough to keep as an article. It is an event that disrupted the daily operations of a major metropolitan area. No, it was not the "BIG ONE" but it was one. It should stay as it is now, Chino Hills Earthquake as it is with the North Ridge, the 1987 Witter Narrows, and 1971 San Fernando (Sylmar) earthquake, all of which shook the Los Angeles area. Anyone who knows Los Angeles, it is make up of many smaller area. As far as the content of this article, it seems to be siting many out of area media outlets. Reports come in from many sources most of which can never be confirmed. Points such as Disneyland being evacuated, I find very questionable. I don't doubt that it was reported, I doubt that the entire park was evacuated. During past events, individual rides are evacuated, inspected then reopened. It will often take a day or two to sort this stuff out. And I caution the use of such reports in what is meant to be a factual article. As more information comes out of the USGS, The Los Angeles OEM, and other official sources, it should be recorded here. Unfortunately, I am not in the Los Angeles area at this time, and I can not accurately report on this event. I like many others have to filter out what the news is reporting and reports from family members who are in the area, all of whom came through this event with only minor damage. In the days to come, I will continue to follow this event and start to contact friends and colleagues who are "in the know", but right now they have more important things to do such as take care of inspecting buildings, roadways, rides, and overseeing the implementation of emergency procedures. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.249.201.109 (talk) 16:27, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Links

Can someone fix my links under Predictions. I cannot get them to work for some reason. The url's are imbedded so you can see the webpages when you try and edit the section.Rorry1 (talk) 23:04, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

They look fine to me. --haha169 (talk) 23:23, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

AfD wrapped up

I'm glad to see an admin close the Request for Deletion process, finally. Great work everyone. Now this article can shine, without that ugly, pointless template at its start. Moncrief (talk) 21:24, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Foreshock statement

In my opinion, these two separately sourced statements are too closely juxtaposed:

• There was speculation that the Chino Hills earthquake may have been a foreshock to a larger earthquake.
• Geologists at USGS and Uniform California Earthquake Rupture Forecast suggest that an earthquake with a magnitude of 6.7 or larger will almost definitely occur somewhere in the state within the next 30 years.

If it was a foreshock, then the bigger one would follow relatively quickly, no? The "30 years" statement is unrelated, and was forcasted before the Chino Hills quake. Juxtaposing the two statements makes it read like seismologists think this quake will lead directly to bigger ones, which is not what either source was implying. DavidRF (talk) 22:31, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure about the first one, but the second one is a starter to Arnold Schwarzenegger's little quote. The second one is important to understand Schwarzenegger's quote, which immediately follows. --haha169 (talk) 22:46, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Both statements are fine by themselves. My issue is that when they are back to back, they look like they are related. The report that stated the prediction in the second statement was from April. DavidRF (talk) 22:59, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

How about adding something from the aftershock probability report here to break the statements up? Specifically "Most likely, the recent mainshock will be the largest in the sequence. However, there is a small chance (APPROXIMATELY 5 TO 10 PERCENT) of an earthquake equal to or larger than this mainshock in the next 7 days." --Elliskev 23:45, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. Cliff smith (talk) 23:51, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Sure. --haha169 (talk) 00:01, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Done. --Elliskev 00:03, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Sleepy Hollow

I'm removing from the lead the link to this questionable stub since it doesn't appear to be notable enough. Cliff smith (talk) 23:52, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm taking a wild guess: this article? Linking to stubs is perfectly acceptable, as long a cite says that the article's name is worth mentioning, and by extension, wiki-linking. --haha169 (talk) 00:09, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Cites in lead

This article seems to have a lot of cites in the lead. According to WP:LEADCITE: "Because the lead will usually repeat information also in the body, editors should balance the desire to avoid redundant citations in the lead with the desire to aid readers in locating sources for challengeable material." --I'm an Editorofthewiki^{[citation needed]} 00:14, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

This is usually an issue for articles starting out. However, some Featured Articles like Super Smash Bros. Brawl have some cites in the lead. Its generally not an important issue, though it'd be nice for it to be fixed. --haha169 (talk) 00:19, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Importance

Is this really important enough to be on the Main page? Minor injuries, minor damage; I understand why the media went ballistic, but this is Wikipedia. Westrim (talk) 00:30, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

You should bring that up at Wikipedia:In the news section on the Main Page/Candidates July 29 section. --Elliskev 00:36, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll try that.Westrim (talk) 00:44, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Westrim, CNN is doing a full documentary during Prime Time Friday about this quake. The media went ballistic, and that means something's up. There are huge investigations underway over California's infrastructure because of this. Arnold Schwarzenegger is blaming the Feds for not providing enough money, etc, etc. Just see how this plays out, its much more interesting than 2007 Alum Rock, for sure. --haha169 (talk) 04:32, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

To above, the media went ballistic because that's what they do when a natural disaster hits a major city, even if it isn't very damaging. It was the top story for NBC and ABC yesterday, but today it got a five second blurb for each because it just wasn't very important to national or even international affairs . CNN is looking for ratings and people like to see spectacle, but we didn't make it a main page event when Jolie had twins, even though CNN ran that pretty much 24/7 for a couple days. And what are you talking about, infrastructure investigations? Source please, because aside from the cell phone overload (which was just an underestimation of emergency demand) I know of no infrastructure problems, and I'm pretty wired in. And so you know, I live 80 miles from the epicenter.

As for below, I think that earthquake should have been added to the main page. It's certainly more worthy than this or the terrorist attacks with 5 or 6 dead that always get added regardless of whether they effect the geopolitical balance. And HaHa, Zimbabwe IS an English speaking country. I assume you meant ones like Britain or Australia, but events there are also pretty much ignored. Finally, this is Wikipedia, period. One of our goals is to be neutral, and that includes geographic bias. It didn't happen here is not an excuse, and it did happen here is not a reason.Westrim (talk) 07:41, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

This is the English version of Wikipedia after all. Japan had a magnitude 6.8 earthquake on July 24th, which is more than 30 times stronger than this one, and no article had been made yet because it occurred in the same region as far more deadly 2008 Iwate-Miyagi Nairiku earthquake and no one is going to make a big deal out of it. --Revth (talk) 05:24, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

There is an article on it. 2008 Iwate-Miyagi Nairiku earthquake. I take that earthquake seriously since I have a cousin who literally caught a fever due to fright. Off that note, Wikipedia does include a huge scope of articles. Did you see all 600 stub-class earthquake articles? What about those? Hmm?? --haha169 (talk) 05:36, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

My bad, we don't have an article on that. But you're right: This is English Wikipedia and we take English-speaking nation's events more seriously. Does a Zimbabwean newspaper care about our quake? No. But they'd care if one happened there. Its just natural. --haha169 (talk) 05:39, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

"Prediction" section

The "prediction" section seems a little out of place here. As far as I know, the science of earthquake prediction isn't really... is accepted the word? --Elliskev 00:48, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Follow-up: I saw the recent edit and read the source. I still think the section title would be better as something other than "Prediction". --Elliskev 01:13, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree. I haven't changed it, because I'm not quite sure how to phrase it. Any ideas? "Prediction" isn't really right, and it doesn't really cover all the material in that section anyway. Moncrief (talk) 02:53, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Took a shot at revising it, and summarizing the lead (partially per the discussion above). Cliff smith (talk) 04:22, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Much better. Thanks. --Elliskev 17:56, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Current event tag

I dont think the tag is important any longer since the editing of this article seems to be winding down, and any new information is likely not to cause great changes to this article. Can we take it down? 75.43.198.233 (talk) 04:59, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

No. The even tag should still be up because A) it is still on the ITN section. B) It stays until Edit Conflicts end. C) They generally stay for about a week, sometimes longer depending on the event. --haha169 (talk) 05:13, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

YouTube Earthquake

Apparently, MSNBC claims this earthquake started an Internet phenomemnon as the earthquake's appearances along Judge Judy and Big Brother. Worth noting? It's already on the corresponding Judge Judy article.--DrWho42 (talk) 16:52, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Not MSNBC. Everybody. Its kind of an interesting news piece, and all channels are showing it. It is interesting, but it has to find an appropriate section for insertion. --haha169 (talk) 17:22, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that is interesting. Well, once we find a place for it, here's a ref for it: Rogers, John (2008-07-30). "With cameras all over, SoCal earthquake was a star". Associated Press. Retrieved 2008-07-31. Cliff smith (talk) 17:38, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Maybe this one too: "Video: "Judge Judy" Show Shook by Los Angeles Earthquake" (HTML) (Press release). TransWorldNews. 2007-07-30. Retrieved 2007-07-31. Cliff smith (talk) 18:43, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Alum Rock

There have been some edits stating that the 2007 Alum Rock was stronger and that the only reason the Chino Hills got more coverage is because of its location near media centers. No citations have been provided to support either of these statements. The USGS site shows Alum Rock at 5.4 also. Rather than edit war, can we come to a conclusion here on the talk page? Thanks, Alanraywiki (talk) 23:59, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Thus my removal of Alum rock. The disproportionate coverage was noted in several articles I read, but I don't have time to dig through and find them at the moment. Regardless of Alum rock there are still other quakes in California that were greater than 5.4 but didn't impact the L.A. area after 2004.Westrim (talk) 00:11, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

If there are sources about the disproportionate coverage then there is no problem keeping it. I just added a fact tag until the sources are located. Thanks, Alanraywiki (talk) 00:17, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Sure. I will try to have them up this weekend.Westrim (talk) 00:21, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

It's been about a week, so I am going to remove the comment regarding disproportionate media coverage. Please readd it when the sources are located. Thanks, Alanraywiki (talk) 03:02, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Great Job!

I think we hit this article out of the park! It is a really well written, well sourced article. 98.149.127.13 (talk) 07:12, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Especially considering its lack of importance in comparison with other earthquake articles. Good job. But honestly, GAN is going a bit too fast... Use it as a peer review - that's my suggestion. --haha169 (talk) 22:33, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree. Cliff smith ^talk 18:23, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, well. It passed. Congratulations. I honestly didn't expect that. --haha169 (talk) 00:10, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, as an article nominated for deletion, it went through and passed ITN, DYK, and GA. Yes, a great job, indeed. --Splat5572 (talk) 17:32, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:2008 Chino Hills earthquake/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Hi! I'll be reviewing this article for GA status, and should have the full review up within a couple of hours. Dana boomer (talk) 18:30, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

   • The lead could probably be a little bit longer. Perhaps add a sentence to the second paragraph about the number of fore- and after-shocks?
   • Also, the second paragraph of the lead needs some work. In the first sentence you say the earthquake "urged some amusement park facilities to shut down their rides". Earthquakes are not sentient, they cannot "urge" anything. Perhaps "caused"? Also, the "Nonetheless" at the beginning of the second sentence makes no sense. Perhaps it could be reworded as "The earthquake led".
   • In the "Damage and injuries" section, the last sentence of the first paragraph reads oddly. You have "However, the high volume of telephone use following the shock overloaded and disrupted its service into the afternoon." Could it be reworded to something like "However, the high volume of telephone use following the shock overloaded provider capacity and disrupted service into the afternoon."?
   • Same section, third paragraph. "A gap was reported"? What kind of gap? I may just be missing something completely, but do you mean some of the pavement disappeared, or a pothole came into being, or there was a landslide, or something else? More clarity would be appreciated.
   • Same section, same paragraph. "the building was closed for repairs thereafter." This reads awkwardly. Perhaps reword to "afterwards, the building was closed for repairs and as of August 2008 had not yet reopened."
   • "Response" section, last paragraph. "...scheduled to occur in November 2008, increased significantly." Perhaps say "increased significantly in the aftermath of the earthquake". Just to increase clarity a little bit.

   • Your concerns are already addressed. --Splat5572 (talk) 21:50, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars etc.:

6. 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):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

Overall, a very well-written, well-referenced and well-illustrated article. The issues detailed above are minor prose and MOS things, which should be able to be fixed very easily. I am putting the article on hold for seven days in order to allow these things to be addressed before I pass the article. If you have questions, I can be contacted here on the review page (I have it watchlisted) or on my talk page. Dana boomer (talk) 19:14, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

It looks like most of my concerns have been addressed, and so I am passing the article. For further improvement of the article, I would suggest expanding the lead by one or two sentences. Dana boomer (talk) 00:55, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Felt in Boston?

I don't think it's a good idea to start adding cities where the earthquake was felt that are based on the USGS's "Did You Feel It" self-reporting section of their website. Those reports are generated by just about anyone and are not the expressed statements from reliable sources. That it's on the USGS website does not mean the USGS is endorsing what is said there. Dawnseeker2000 23:50, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

It's true. Did you look at earthquake.usgs.gov/earthquakes/dyfi/events/ci/14383980/us/index.html ? It will show you. Just click on the responses. In fact I don't understand. I just want to post something that came from Did you feel it section. One said it was strong in Nashua, New Hampshire.UsefulWikipedia (talk) 23:56, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Dawnseeker2000. Collectively, those reports are not a reliable source because they are user-generated. They should not be used in this article. Cliff Smith 01:30, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on 2008 Chino Hills earthquake. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091104163344/http://earthquake.usgs.gov/eqcenter/eqinthenews/2008/ci14383980/ to http://earthquake.usgs.gov/eqcenter/eqinthenews/2008/ci14383980/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091104163344/http://earthquake.usgs.gov/eqcenter/eqinthenews/2008/ci14383980/ to http://earthquake.usgs.gov/eqcenter/eqinthenews/2008/ci14383980/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:50, 18 June 2017 (UTC)