This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
2008 Chino Hills 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 |
![]() | 2008 Chino Hills earthquake has been listed as one of the Geography and places 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. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
There is no damage. Why is this a big deal on Fox news?-- Xxhopingtearsxx ( talk) 19:22, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
CBC News is reporting minor damage and evacuation for fear of aftershocks. Davidyz ( talk) 19:41, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
In my opinion, these two separately sourced statements are too closely juxtaposed:
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 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)
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 Editor of the wiki citation needed 00:14, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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:
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: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 02:50, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
This earthquake may have been captured on the Season 5 bloopers of The Office. Filming began in July 2008. Saussbauss ( talk) 03:01, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
2008 Chino Hills 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 |
![]() | 2008 Chino Hills earthquake has been listed as one of the Geography and places 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. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
There is no damage. Why is this a big deal on Fox news?-- Xxhopingtearsxx ( talk) 19:22, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
CBC News is reporting minor damage and evacuation for fear of aftershocks. Davidyz ( talk) 19:41, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
In my opinion, these two separately sourced statements are too closely juxtaposed:
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 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)
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 Editor of the wiki citation needed 00:14, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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:
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: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 02:50, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
This earthquake may have been captured on the Season 5 bloopers of The Office. Filming began in July 2008. Saussbauss ( talk) 03:01, 29 June 2024 (UTC)