Talk:2010 Illinois earthquake

This article was nominated for deletion on 2010-03-06. The result of the discussion was KEEP.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the 2010 Illinois earthquake redirect.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Earthquakes

	This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Earthquakes, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of earthquakes, seismology, plate tectonics, and related subjects on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EarthquakesWikipedia:WikiProject EarthquakesTemplate:WikiProject EarthquakesWikiProject Earthquakes articles
	This redirect has been marked as needing immediate attention.

Illinois Low‑importance

	Illinois portal This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Illinois, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Illinois on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IllinoisWikipedia:WikiProject IllinoisTemplate:WikiProject IllinoisWikiProject Illinois articles
Low	This redirect has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Geology Low‑importance

	Geology portal Talk:2010 Illinois earthquake is part of WikiProject Geology, an attempt at creating a standardized, informative, comprehensive and easy-to-use geology resource. If you would like to participate, you can choose to edit this article, or visit the project page for more information.GeologyWikipedia:WikiProject GeologyTemplate:WikiProject GeologyGeology articles
Low	This redirect has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Chicago

This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Chicago, which aims to improve all articles or pages related to Chicago or the Chicago metropolitan area.ChicagoWikipedia:WikiProject ChicagoTemplate:WikiProject ChicagoChicago articles

2nd para misleading and should be deleted

The quake referenced in the second paragraph (and in the two suntimes.com citations) occurred in 2008 and was 400 miles away from the epicenter of the 2010 quake. It has also not been established that the fault responsible for the 2010 quake is connected in any way with the New Madrid fault zone. The entire second paragraph should be deleted.

66.92.133.134 (talk) 14:24, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like this has been taken care of. Diiscool (talk) 21:54, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Notability?

An anonymous user has suggested that this article is not notable. I would argue that it does fulfill the requirements outlined by Wikipedia at Wikipedia:Notability. First, the earthquake "received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" such as the New York Times (cited in the article), the Christian Science Monitor^[1], and the Wall Street Journal^[2] to name just a few. Second, any earthquake in Illinois is rare, especially one that generates national news coverage. This particular earthquake is notable scientifically because its origins are not understood well. —Diiscool (talk) 23:40, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

^ Gaylord, Chris (February 10, 2010). "Illinois earthquake: How bad is a 3.8 magnitude?". Christian Science Monitor. Retrieved February 27, 2010. {{cite web}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)
^ Barrett, Joe (February 10, 2010 accessdate=February 27, 2010). "Minor Earthquake Strikes Near Chicago". Wall Street Journal. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |date= (help); Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help); Missing pipe in: |date= (help)

Related to this, given that the AfD has closed as "keep," would there be any opposition to removing the tags at the top of the article? Given the AfD, it would seem that general consensus is that it is notable and appropriate. If there's no objections, I'll go ahead and do that. C628 (talk) 01:38, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You know, I was wondering about that myself. I vote to remove the templates. --Funandtrvl (talk) 06:01, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I was just thinking the same. Cut 'em. Lost on Belmont (talk) 06:15, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done C628 (talk) 11:55, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Aftershock of 1853 quake?

Some time ago, an anonymous user added an unsourced claim that this quake was an aftershock of one in 1853, which I removed. It was then restored, this time with a {{fact}} tag. There was a similar claim on the Sandwich Fault Zone article, added by the same user. This had no references either, and the references in that article specifically denied that any earthquakes from the fault zone had occurred prior to 2002. Not being able to any references for the claim, I removed the note in that article, and am proposing to do the same with this article. Since the same edit has already been reverted here, I'd rather submit it for discussion than go straight ahead and do so. Thoughts? Thanks, C628 (talk) 22:02, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

C628, I agree with you. When a source is found, the fact can be included. For now, it seems like unverifiable speculation to me. Unfortunately, this article has been the target of vandalism and spamming since its inception (I can't figure out why though). Thanks for cleaning it up. —Diiscool (talk) 22:09, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I restored the claim and added the fact tag. There was a recent paper (I'll try to find the source) that claimed that most of the intraplate earthquakes in the US (and presumably elsewhere) were probably aftershocks of the infrequent larger events that occur in such areas. Having said that, I wasn't planning to wait too long before deleting, if no source turned up. I'll have a search around myself to see if I can find anything about this supposed earlier event. Mikenorton (talk) 22:24, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm still inclined towards deleting it, though, since there's a source here that specifically denies that any quake occurred prior to 2002 ("The last major earthquake in this area was on June 18, 2002..." and "The fault has not been historically active"). If your paper doesn't specifically say that this quake was such an aftershock, I'm of the opinion that it's still, as Diiscool said, unverifiable speculation. Thanks, C628 (talk) 22:32, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Having searched through various catalogues and lists, there seems to be no record of an 1853 quake in the area, which, taken with your source, makes it pretty clear now. Having restored it, I'm now deleting it. Only be aware that 150 year old aftershocks are certainly possible, even if this wasn't one. Mikenorton (talk) 22:54, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, sounds good. I'll remember that bit about aftershocks; learn something new every day. :) Thanks, C628 (talk) 00:07, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

[1] Gaylord, Chris (February 10, 2010). "Illinois earthquake: How bad is a 3.8 magnitude?". Christian Science Monitor. Retrieved February 27, 2010. {{cite web}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)

[2] Barrett, Joe (February 10, 2010 accessdate=February 27, 2010). "Minor Earthquake Strikes Near Chicago". Wall Street Journal. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |date= (help); Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help); Missing pipe in: |date= (help)

[1]

[2]