This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
1971 San Fernando earthquake article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | 1971 San Fernando earthquake has been listed as one of the Natural sciences good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. | |||||||||
| ||||||||||
![]() | Facts from this article were featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the " On this day..." column on February 9, 2012, and February 9, 2021. |
![]() | This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | Material from 1971 San Fernando earthquake was split to Sierra Madre Fault Zone on 23:28, 19 March 2017 from this version. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted so long as the latter page exists. Please leave this template in place to link the article histories and preserve this attribution. |
The previous Wiki page stated, "In actuality, the epicenter of the quake was located underground, roughly at the intersection of Kenya Street and Wilbur Avenue in the Los Angeles district of Northridge" without listing references for this data.
However, the sources I cited indicate something else.
I have removed the original statement because there were no references, but I retained the original text above just in case the author wants to document the information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.255.50.234 ( talk • contribs) 06:04, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
Adjustment here. With regards to the 5/14 overpass collapsing twice, it's not actually ironic that it collapsed during the Sylmar quake and again during the Northridge quake - it's nothing more than unfortunate coincidence. I can't think of any circumstance that would be an ironic collapse of a freeway overpass. -- Dennis The TIger 21:55, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
The first paragraph states the magnitude as 6.6, yet the LAFire.com reference states 6.5. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.169.175.130 ( talk • contribs) 03:54, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
According to the USGS website ( http://earthquake.usgs.gov/earthquakes/states/events/1971_02_09.php) the earthquake measured 6.6 on the scale.
This destructive earthquake occurred in a sparsely populated area of the San Gabriel Mountains, near San Fernando. It lasted about 60 seconds, and, in that brief span of time, took 65 lives, injured more than 2,000, and caused property damage estimated at $505 million.
The earthquake created a zone of discontinuous surface faulting, named the San Fernando fault zone, which partly follows the boundary between the San Gabriel Mountains and the San Fernando - Tujunga Valleys and partly transects the northern salient of the San Fernando Valley. This latter zone of tectonic ruptures was associated with some of the heaviest property damage sustained in the region. Within the entire length of the surface faulting, which extended roughly east-west for about 15 kilometers, the maximum vertical offset measured on a single scarp was about 1 meter, the maximum lateral offset about 1 meter, and the maximum shortening (thrust component) about 0.9 meters.
The most spectacular damage included the destruction of major structures at the Olive View and the Veterans Administration Hospitals and the collapse of freeway overpasses. The newly built, earthquake-resistant buildings at the Olive View Hospital in Sylmar were destroyed - four five-story wings pulled away from the main building and three stair towers toppled. Older, unreinforced masonry buildings collapsed at the Veterans Administration Hospital at San Fernando, killing 49 people. Many older buildings in the Alhambra, Beverly Hills, Burbank, and Glendale areas were damaged beyond repair, and thousands of chimneys were damaged in the region. Public utilities and facilities of all kinds were damaged, both above and below ground.
Severe ground fracturing and landslides were responsible for extensive damage in areas where faulting was not observed. The most damaging landslide occurred in the Upper Lake area of Van Norman Lakes, where highway overpasses, railroads, pipelines, and almost all structures in the path of the slide were damaged severely. Several overpasses collapsed. Two dams were damaged severely (Lower Van Norman Dam and Pacoima Dam), and three others sustained minor damage. Widespread landslides and rockfalls blocked many highways in the area.
Felt throughout southern California and into western Arizona and southern Nevada. No foreshocks were recorded, but aftershocks were reported in the area for several months.
Abridged from Seismicity of the United States, 1568-1989 (Revised), by Carl W. Stover and Jerry L. Coffman, U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 1527, United States Government Printing Office, Washington: 1993. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.210.199.233 ( talk) 17:16, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
I intentionally wrote the paragraph that way , saying "which resulted in a large loss of life at the facility" because there are conflicting reports on the total number of casualties there. I think it's fine as it is and will be submitting it as GA soon. Dawnseeker2000 23:58, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!
-- JeffGBot ( talk) 15:01, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!
-- JeffGBot ( talk) 15:01, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
I've uploaded one of the photos - there are many more (155 in total), if anyone feels like going through them - look here. Mikenorton ( talk) 21:57, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
A project for a structural dynamics course (~1976) resulted in me analyzing the Olive View collapse. Photos published in a report on the construction of the building clearly showed spiral rebar left on the ground in the corner of the property after the second story concrete pouring had commenced. Since only the ground floor columns were circular, they clearly had not had all the reinforcing placed. Photos of the building after the collapse showed that the joints between the circular columns and the floor of the upper storey had disintegrated as the vertical rebar was there but inadequate spiral rebar was in place; the spiral reinforcing had stopped just short of the top of the column. This made the joints extremely flexible once the concrete had shattered in the initial earthquake shock, resulting in the building collapsing. These documents were in the university engineering library and were part of reports on the collapse; I'd don't have a reference handy. Someone with access to an engineering library may be able to find the relevant docs and provide a commentary to the article. 99.245.230.104 ( talk) 20:45, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
So, going for a good article here. It's a long process. I started on it in mid-2013. Today, Imveracious came in an modified some sources that made the article completely contradict itself. That is not an improvement, so I reversed the change. What his edit did was not only make the article in disagreement with itself, but left a whole bunch of material without sources. Please, stop introducing errors while I get this article to good article status. Dawnseeker2000 20:25, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
Imveracious ( talk) 21:49, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
Just posted on your talk about the miscommunication we're having. I want to try to clear this up for you, and anyone else that passes by. I have put a monumental effort into this article and it's not even finished yet. I reverted your change today because it was left in a broken state. The sources that are used for the 12 second duration figure are also used for several paragraphs.
The source that states 12 seconds, "Steinbrugge, K. V.; Schader, E. E.; Bigglestone, H. C.; Weers, C. A. (1971). San Fernando Earthquake: February 9, 1971. Pacific Fire Rating Bureau. p. vii." (ref #7), is the source for the first paragraph in the Earthquake section.
Another source that states 12 seconds, "Steinbrugge, Schader & Moran 1975, pp. 341–346" (ref #18), is the source for all of the paragraphs in the Olive View Hospital section under Damage.
I want to reiterate that it would not be a good idea to change these sources. They're firmly embedded in the article, and are more accurate than the Stover & Coffman source. I'm not abandoning that source. Like I said, it's fantastic, but for this article we have other more specific sources that cover the duration. My sources are tied to an instrument at the Pacoima Dam, and I'm remembering why I chose this source last year when I did the expansion. There's another source that I have that shows the accelerogram with the time clearly labeled. This 60 second figure has neither of those things. No location or instrument. Dawnseeker2000 00:22, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
The 48 seconds was "very fast severe constant shaking, knocking over walls etc etc...", not shaking as you described it You interview "anyone" that lives in Sylmar and was awake or semi-awake during the earthquake they will all agree. I lived in Sylmar. If the edit is not done within the next 20 years or so, the accuracy of this earthquake will be lost forever. I am people that lived in Sylmar are the best source of information. The USGS has this but you doubt the shaking severity obviously. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dalewob ( talk • contribs) 00:59, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
What you changed regarding the reservoirs was already cited, so I don't see a need to change it, so I put it back the way it was. Just trying to keep this as simple as possible for the GA reviewer. Sorry about the miscommunications we've been having. Dawnseeker2000 00:32, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
According to the EQE Summary Report, March 1994 it did cause surface rupture. This may be read @- http://www.lafire.com/famous_fires/1994-0117_NorthridgeEarthquake/quake/02_EQE_geology.htm Thank you Shyncat ( talk) 20:29, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for pointing this out. Was at work yesterday when this latest round round of back and forth editing took place, and felt like the time was not spent well, especially after reading the link that supported the article as it stands. Dawnseeker2000 15:18, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
This keeps on coming up. The USGS, quoting Stover & Coffman give 60 seconds, other seismological sources give 12 seconds or thereabouts. Perhaps this needs to be actually discussed in the article. Boore 1973 shows seismograms (filtered to remove anything over 15 Hz) from the Pacoima Dam and the duration of significant shaking is obviously a lot less than 60 seconds (as would be expected from an M6.5 earthquake). The earthquake report (source 1) has contradictory numbers in it. The duration of strong shaking is given as 12 seconds based on the Pacoima Dam seismogram (page 163), but elsewhere (page 5) it gives 60 seconds. In Bulletin 196 of the California Divisin of Mines & Geology, the duration of strong motion is unequivocally given as 'about 12 seconds' (page 323 Chapter 25). I suspect (but cannot prove) that difference is because they are measuring different things - the duration of 'strong shaking' versus the duration of 'shaking'. There are a lot of BSSA papers on this earthquake that I don't have access to and perhaps one of them would clarify this discrepancy. Mikenorton ( talk) 22:27, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
OK, just having a quick look at the paper now, and it definitely looks to be useful. At the very least, we should do as you suggested by making clear that what is stated is the strong motion duration. Duh, Dawnseeker. Thanks for that, and this source could even be used to add a small paragraph on the matter. Dawnseeker2000 22:23, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
The map has it showing as a M6.7 but that's not what the size is given in the rest of this. If you goggle that size you get a bunch of results that say 6.7 so what size was it? DavidCarson73 ( talk) 19:00, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
According to the USGS the duration was 60 seconds. The 12 seconds mentioned here refer to the period of "strongest shaking", which apparently was much shorter than the total earthquake. Huon ( talk) 00:49, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
The lower reservoir, the one that almost lost it's bank, is not in use any longer. The way it's written here it sounds like it is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:30A:2E63:A250:7DDE:8F7:619F:42A9 ( talk) 17:42, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
This article had been a work in progress since it was expanded in early 2013, but there's been something about it that hasn't been quite right though. I think that I'm now seeing the problem. As a result of paraphrasing dense sources, the article is equally dense and is too long, with a high text-to-source ratio. As of right now, the article's size is 56,653 characters, with 34,828 characters of readable text. For comparison, this article has just under 1,000 readable characters less than the 2010 Chile article, which has twice the number of total characters. I'll be removing just over 4 KB, and we'll get a new article out of it ( Sierra Madre Fault Zone).
Article | Total size in bytes | Readable characters | Words | Refs |
---|---|---|---|---|
2010 Chile earthquake | 117,828 | 35794 | 5802 | 174 |
2011 Virginia earthquake | 64,166 | 24928 | 3884 | 113 |
1971 San Fernando earthquake | 56,653 | 34828 | 5586 | 31 |
2009 Samoa earthquake and tsunami | 51,798 | 16838 | 2723 | 78 |
2016 Aceh earthquake | 51,105 | 19198 | 3051 | 121 |
With this change, the article will be a little bit less of a wall of text, and readers may be more likely to stick around and finish reading the article. |
Dawnseeker2000 23:24, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
See M 6.6 - 10km SSW of Agua Dulce, CA. Are the names San Fernando Earthquake and/or Sylmar Earthquake official names? If so then where is there an authority for that? The official epicenter is quite far from San Fernando and Sylmar and therefore those names are misleading. Use of those names are apparently due to people not referring to authoritive sources. Sam Tomato ( talk) 04:24, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
The 50th anniversary of the 1971 San Fernando earthquake is coming up soon. This wikiarticle is now on deck to appear in the On This Day section on MainPage. However, a few minor problems with the article's contents have been reported on WP:ERRORS. Can someone familiar with the topic help smoothen out the kinks in the article before the anniversary, please? Thanks. -- PFHLai ( talk) 22:08, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Some Dude From North Carolina ( talk · contribs) 15:16, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
Hey, I'm going to be reviewing this article. Expect comments by the end of the week. Some Dude From North Carolina ( talk) 15:16, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not) |
---|
|
Overall: |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
When I moved here in 1991, this was always referred to as the "1971 Sylmar Earthquake" and especially after Northridge (which is also in the San Fernando Valley). At what point did this get changed? Just go to almost any article about Northridge and it will be referred to as Sylmar.
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
1971 San Fernando earthquake article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | 1971 San Fernando earthquake has been listed as one of the Natural sciences good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. | |||||||||
| ||||||||||
![]() | Facts from this article were featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the " On this day..." column on February 9, 2012, and February 9, 2021. |
![]() | This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | Material from 1971 San Fernando earthquake was split to Sierra Madre Fault Zone on 23:28, 19 March 2017 from this version. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted so long as the latter page exists. Please leave this template in place to link the article histories and preserve this attribution. |
The previous Wiki page stated, "In actuality, the epicenter of the quake was located underground, roughly at the intersection of Kenya Street and Wilbur Avenue in the Los Angeles district of Northridge" without listing references for this data.
However, the sources I cited indicate something else.
I have removed the original statement because there were no references, but I retained the original text above just in case the author wants to document the information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.255.50.234 ( talk • contribs) 06:04, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
Adjustment here. With regards to the 5/14 overpass collapsing twice, it's not actually ironic that it collapsed during the Sylmar quake and again during the Northridge quake - it's nothing more than unfortunate coincidence. I can't think of any circumstance that would be an ironic collapse of a freeway overpass. -- Dennis The TIger 21:55, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
The first paragraph states the magnitude as 6.6, yet the LAFire.com reference states 6.5. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.169.175.130 ( talk • contribs) 03:54, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
According to the USGS website ( http://earthquake.usgs.gov/earthquakes/states/events/1971_02_09.php) the earthquake measured 6.6 on the scale.
This destructive earthquake occurred in a sparsely populated area of the San Gabriel Mountains, near San Fernando. It lasted about 60 seconds, and, in that brief span of time, took 65 lives, injured more than 2,000, and caused property damage estimated at $505 million.
The earthquake created a zone of discontinuous surface faulting, named the San Fernando fault zone, which partly follows the boundary between the San Gabriel Mountains and the San Fernando - Tujunga Valleys and partly transects the northern salient of the San Fernando Valley. This latter zone of tectonic ruptures was associated with some of the heaviest property damage sustained in the region. Within the entire length of the surface faulting, which extended roughly east-west for about 15 kilometers, the maximum vertical offset measured on a single scarp was about 1 meter, the maximum lateral offset about 1 meter, and the maximum shortening (thrust component) about 0.9 meters.
The most spectacular damage included the destruction of major structures at the Olive View and the Veterans Administration Hospitals and the collapse of freeway overpasses. The newly built, earthquake-resistant buildings at the Olive View Hospital in Sylmar were destroyed - four five-story wings pulled away from the main building and three stair towers toppled. Older, unreinforced masonry buildings collapsed at the Veterans Administration Hospital at San Fernando, killing 49 people. Many older buildings in the Alhambra, Beverly Hills, Burbank, and Glendale areas were damaged beyond repair, and thousands of chimneys were damaged in the region. Public utilities and facilities of all kinds were damaged, both above and below ground.
Severe ground fracturing and landslides were responsible for extensive damage in areas where faulting was not observed. The most damaging landslide occurred in the Upper Lake area of Van Norman Lakes, where highway overpasses, railroads, pipelines, and almost all structures in the path of the slide were damaged severely. Several overpasses collapsed. Two dams were damaged severely (Lower Van Norman Dam and Pacoima Dam), and three others sustained minor damage. Widespread landslides and rockfalls blocked many highways in the area.
Felt throughout southern California and into western Arizona and southern Nevada. No foreshocks were recorded, but aftershocks were reported in the area for several months.
Abridged from Seismicity of the United States, 1568-1989 (Revised), by Carl W. Stover and Jerry L. Coffman, U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 1527, United States Government Printing Office, Washington: 1993. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.210.199.233 ( talk) 17:16, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
I intentionally wrote the paragraph that way , saying "which resulted in a large loss of life at the facility" because there are conflicting reports on the total number of casualties there. I think it's fine as it is and will be submitting it as GA soon. Dawnseeker2000 23:58, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!
-- JeffGBot ( talk) 15:01, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!
-- JeffGBot ( talk) 15:01, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
I've uploaded one of the photos - there are many more (155 in total), if anyone feels like going through them - look here. Mikenorton ( talk) 21:57, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
A project for a structural dynamics course (~1976) resulted in me analyzing the Olive View collapse. Photos published in a report on the construction of the building clearly showed spiral rebar left on the ground in the corner of the property after the second story concrete pouring had commenced. Since only the ground floor columns were circular, they clearly had not had all the reinforcing placed. Photos of the building after the collapse showed that the joints between the circular columns and the floor of the upper storey had disintegrated as the vertical rebar was there but inadequate spiral rebar was in place; the spiral reinforcing had stopped just short of the top of the column. This made the joints extremely flexible once the concrete had shattered in the initial earthquake shock, resulting in the building collapsing. These documents were in the university engineering library and were part of reports on the collapse; I'd don't have a reference handy. Someone with access to an engineering library may be able to find the relevant docs and provide a commentary to the article. 99.245.230.104 ( talk) 20:45, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
So, going for a good article here. It's a long process. I started on it in mid-2013. Today, Imveracious came in an modified some sources that made the article completely contradict itself. That is not an improvement, so I reversed the change. What his edit did was not only make the article in disagreement with itself, but left a whole bunch of material without sources. Please, stop introducing errors while I get this article to good article status. Dawnseeker2000 20:25, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
Imveracious ( talk) 21:49, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
Just posted on your talk about the miscommunication we're having. I want to try to clear this up for you, and anyone else that passes by. I have put a monumental effort into this article and it's not even finished yet. I reverted your change today because it was left in a broken state. The sources that are used for the 12 second duration figure are also used for several paragraphs.
The source that states 12 seconds, "Steinbrugge, K. V.; Schader, E. E.; Bigglestone, H. C.; Weers, C. A. (1971). San Fernando Earthquake: February 9, 1971. Pacific Fire Rating Bureau. p. vii." (ref #7), is the source for the first paragraph in the Earthquake section.
Another source that states 12 seconds, "Steinbrugge, Schader & Moran 1975, pp. 341–346" (ref #18), is the source for all of the paragraphs in the Olive View Hospital section under Damage.
I want to reiterate that it would not be a good idea to change these sources. They're firmly embedded in the article, and are more accurate than the Stover & Coffman source. I'm not abandoning that source. Like I said, it's fantastic, but for this article we have other more specific sources that cover the duration. My sources are tied to an instrument at the Pacoima Dam, and I'm remembering why I chose this source last year when I did the expansion. There's another source that I have that shows the accelerogram with the time clearly labeled. This 60 second figure has neither of those things. No location or instrument. Dawnseeker2000 00:22, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
The 48 seconds was "very fast severe constant shaking, knocking over walls etc etc...", not shaking as you described it You interview "anyone" that lives in Sylmar and was awake or semi-awake during the earthquake they will all agree. I lived in Sylmar. If the edit is not done within the next 20 years or so, the accuracy of this earthquake will be lost forever. I am people that lived in Sylmar are the best source of information. The USGS has this but you doubt the shaking severity obviously. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dalewob ( talk • contribs) 00:59, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
What you changed regarding the reservoirs was already cited, so I don't see a need to change it, so I put it back the way it was. Just trying to keep this as simple as possible for the GA reviewer. Sorry about the miscommunications we've been having. Dawnseeker2000 00:32, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
According to the EQE Summary Report, March 1994 it did cause surface rupture. This may be read @- http://www.lafire.com/famous_fires/1994-0117_NorthridgeEarthquake/quake/02_EQE_geology.htm Thank you Shyncat ( talk) 20:29, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for pointing this out. Was at work yesterday when this latest round round of back and forth editing took place, and felt like the time was not spent well, especially after reading the link that supported the article as it stands. Dawnseeker2000 15:18, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
This keeps on coming up. The USGS, quoting Stover & Coffman give 60 seconds, other seismological sources give 12 seconds or thereabouts. Perhaps this needs to be actually discussed in the article. Boore 1973 shows seismograms (filtered to remove anything over 15 Hz) from the Pacoima Dam and the duration of significant shaking is obviously a lot less than 60 seconds (as would be expected from an M6.5 earthquake). The earthquake report (source 1) has contradictory numbers in it. The duration of strong shaking is given as 12 seconds based on the Pacoima Dam seismogram (page 163), but elsewhere (page 5) it gives 60 seconds. In Bulletin 196 of the California Divisin of Mines & Geology, the duration of strong motion is unequivocally given as 'about 12 seconds' (page 323 Chapter 25). I suspect (but cannot prove) that difference is because they are measuring different things - the duration of 'strong shaking' versus the duration of 'shaking'. There are a lot of BSSA papers on this earthquake that I don't have access to and perhaps one of them would clarify this discrepancy. Mikenorton ( talk) 22:27, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
OK, just having a quick look at the paper now, and it definitely looks to be useful. At the very least, we should do as you suggested by making clear that what is stated is the strong motion duration. Duh, Dawnseeker. Thanks for that, and this source could even be used to add a small paragraph on the matter. Dawnseeker2000 22:23, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
The map has it showing as a M6.7 but that's not what the size is given in the rest of this. If you goggle that size you get a bunch of results that say 6.7 so what size was it? DavidCarson73 ( talk) 19:00, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
According to the USGS the duration was 60 seconds. The 12 seconds mentioned here refer to the period of "strongest shaking", which apparently was much shorter than the total earthquake. Huon ( talk) 00:49, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
The lower reservoir, the one that almost lost it's bank, is not in use any longer. The way it's written here it sounds like it is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:30A:2E63:A250:7DDE:8F7:619F:42A9 ( talk) 17:42, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
This article had been a work in progress since it was expanded in early 2013, but there's been something about it that hasn't been quite right though. I think that I'm now seeing the problem. As a result of paraphrasing dense sources, the article is equally dense and is too long, with a high text-to-source ratio. As of right now, the article's size is 56,653 characters, with 34,828 characters of readable text. For comparison, this article has just under 1,000 readable characters less than the 2010 Chile article, which has twice the number of total characters. I'll be removing just over 4 KB, and we'll get a new article out of it ( Sierra Madre Fault Zone).
Article | Total size in bytes | Readable characters | Words | Refs |
---|---|---|---|---|
2010 Chile earthquake | 117,828 | 35794 | 5802 | 174 |
2011 Virginia earthquake | 64,166 | 24928 | 3884 | 113 |
1971 San Fernando earthquake | 56,653 | 34828 | 5586 | 31 |
2009 Samoa earthquake and tsunami | 51,798 | 16838 | 2723 | 78 |
2016 Aceh earthquake | 51,105 | 19198 | 3051 | 121 |
With this change, the article will be a little bit less of a wall of text, and readers may be more likely to stick around and finish reading the article. |
Dawnseeker2000 23:24, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
See M 6.6 - 10km SSW of Agua Dulce, CA. Are the names San Fernando Earthquake and/or Sylmar Earthquake official names? If so then where is there an authority for that? The official epicenter is quite far from San Fernando and Sylmar and therefore those names are misleading. Use of those names are apparently due to people not referring to authoritive sources. Sam Tomato ( talk) 04:24, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
The 50th anniversary of the 1971 San Fernando earthquake is coming up soon. This wikiarticle is now on deck to appear in the On This Day section on MainPage. However, a few minor problems with the article's contents have been reported on WP:ERRORS. Can someone familiar with the topic help smoothen out the kinks in the article before the anniversary, please? Thanks. -- PFHLai ( talk) 22:08, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Some Dude From North Carolina ( talk · contribs) 15:16, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
Hey, I'm going to be reviewing this article. Expect comments by the end of the week. Some Dude From North Carolina ( talk) 15:16, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not) |
---|
|
Overall: |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
When I moved here in 1991, this was always referred to as the "1971 Sylmar Earthquake" and especially after Northridge (which is also in the San Fernando Valley). At what point did this get changed? Just go to almost any article about Northridge and it will be referred to as Sylmar.