Talk:Cascadia subduction zone

message: What is with this section?  It is both extremely technical and unsourced except the cite to Lyatsky at the top of it.  Is the whole section the "summary"?  What is quoted and what is not needs to be clearer, and it would help to make, at the least, the purpose of this section of the entry make more sense to the layperson.
24.21.86.235 09:48, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Another Interpretation? 

message: After reviewing this article, it is no longer a B class article and has been downgraded. The reviewed version contained more information, but much gas been removed as I guess OR. To get back to B class this needs a proper WP:LEAD; some information on the volcanoes, not just a list (aren't they supposed to be formed from the lava that is created buy the subduction of the ocean plate or something?); a better description of location in the geography section that should mention the US and Canada for those less familiar with the region. As a bounus, in-line citations would be a great addition, and I believe are now required to reach GA. Aboutmovies (talk) 06:41, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, downgrade was proper.  This article's coverage of the topic is incomplete and uneven, and really needs reorganization by someone with some grasp of the topic. - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 18:14, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Assessment

message: How do i do to translate this article to Spanish?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.208.74.141 (talk) 19:53, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Question.

message: This is being picky, but I would suggest that the list of cities affected by a subduction zone earthquake be revised, specifically Sacramento should not be included in the list. Sacramento like San Francisco would likely feel the earthquake but is 200+ miles south of the southern edge of the subduction zone and therefore the expected impact would be significantly less compared with a city such as Seattle or Portland. 
The article that is referencing the statement is by a journalist rather than a scientist, I would question whether this should be used as a reference for a scientific matter??  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.16.236.14 (talk) 16:46, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Major cities affected by a disturbance in this subduction zone should be revised. 

message: For anyone interested in taking a closer look at the scientific thinking regarding recurrence rate: take look at USGS Open-File Report 2011–1310.  Additional comment at Talk:1700 Cascadia earthquake#Resource. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:29, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recurrence rate 

message: There ought to be a history section, as its discovery is really interesting—its existence was not fully confirmed until the 80s/90s. During a tsunami that hit the coast of Japan, it had been referred to as an "orphan tsunami" until researchers lined up dynastic dates with the Gregorian calendar. Further researchers compiled oral history among American Indian tribes to approximate a location of this earthquake, since Europeans (and writing systems) hadn't arrived there by that point. Geologists eventually confirmed it after they came upon a "ghost forest" in the Copalis River, remnants of 300-year-old trees that had suddenly been killed by the ground plummeting on the fault, and after analyzing rock samples in that area and on the sea floor.
Some sources:
====reflist====
- SweetNightmares 04:23, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I am working on a history section. - SweetNightmares 21:01, 15 July 2015 (UTC
The "history" section is confusing. It seems to be essentially a history of the several pieces of evidence for the 1700 earthquake, not of activity along the entire fault zone. But it does not announce itself as such. There is already a page on the 1700 earthquake where this material should be found. Not saying you need to get rid of this section, but maybe relabel or contextualize it.66.190.3.150 (talk) 18:15, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  History 

message: - SweetNightmares 04:23, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I am working on a history section. - SweetNightmares 21:01, 15 July 2015 (UTC
The "history" section is confusing. It seems to be essentially a history of the several pieces of evidence for the 1700 earthquake, not of activity along the entire fault zone. But it does not announce itself as such. There is already a page on the 1700 earthquake where this material should be found. Not saying you need to get rid of this section, but maybe relabel or contextualize it.66.190.3.150 (talk) 18:15, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: reflist

message: The July 20, 2015, issue of the NEW YORKER, pp 52-58: ANNALS OF SEISMOLOGY - THE REALLY BIG ONE: An earthquake will destory a siable portion of the coastal Northwest. The question is when.
Does this comprehensive treatment of the likely imminent diaster merit a reference in this artcle?  Frankatca (talk) 13:33, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: From my short research on the fault, it's a bit alarmist, but you'll notice it's already cited in the article. Planning to include more material from it in a history section I'm working on. - SweetNightmares 15:54, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: That news story is not the right kind of source for this type of article. Dawnseeker2000 15:56, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I beg to differ. It's not all geological and seismological information that we should be taking from dry peer-reviewed journals; the New Yorker article, with all its faults, does contain a useful summary of the discovery of the fault. Did you even bother to take a look at the writeup I linked? - SweetNightmares 15:06, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

text: The New Yorker story is too editorial to be a good primary source. Every fact in it can be found in a more appropriate source (I know because nothing in it was new information to me, a geophysicist). I see 3 specific ways it could be used in this article: 1) If its popularity continues long enough to impact public awareness or action, it could be mentioned at the end of a history section; 2) If it used extensively in outlining and/or writing such a history section, it should be included as a reference, even though every inline citation should be a less derivative source; 3) If one of the quotations from the scientists interviewed seems both striking and important enough for inclusion. Elriana (talk) 18:15, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

text: As for the addition of a 'History' section mentioned by SweetNightmares, I have no objection to adding more of the facts discussed in the New Yorker story to this article. However, particular care should be exercised to maintain an encyclopedic tone and to communicate the important information in a clear and concise manner, without getting caught up in story-telling. What SweetNightmares has drafted so far is actually more of a section on Evidence of Past Large Earthquakes than it is a History. Merging this into the current flow of the article may take a bit of rearranging, but I think it could work.Elriana (talk) 18:15, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Normally I dislike bringing up policy, but for valid reasons, Wikipedia actually prefers secondary sources. See WP:PRIMARY. - SweetNightmares 19:59, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

text: Please keep a professional, rather than belittling, tone. You inferred we should discard peer-reviewed sources; I said this article should not exclusively include them. What is wrong with diversification anyhow? As long as the information is not outright wrong, using other sources to back up an article is pretty standard fare. It's not as though the New Yorker is unreliable blogspam/clickbait. Yes, the article is sensationalist, but that's why we need to prune through it and select the good parts, then present them neutrally. This article is not just about hard science, and besides, as I mentioned above, WP:PRIMARY lists a host of reasons why secondary sources are oftentimes preferable. - SweetNightmares 13:40, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, diversification is fine, but I would still prefer to use a compilation of scientific articles instead. If we apply Elriana's recommendation, "particular care should be exercised to maintain an encyclopedic tone and to communicate the important information in a clear and concise manner, without getting caught up in story-telling", the magazine article (shudders) can be used in limited fashion. That's all from me, Dawnseeker2000 17:41, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:   New Yorker 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Cascadia subduction zone. 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/20100602050632/http://www.emporia.edu/earthsci/student/geller2/cascadia.html to http://www.emporia.edu/earthsci/student/geller2/cascadia.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100530163911/http://www.pnsn.org/HAZARDS/CASCADIA/assets/locked.jpg to http://www.pnsn.org/HAZARDS/CASCADIA/assets/locked.jpg
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120319210743/http://www.gps.caltech.edu/~simons/TectonicObservatory/AtwaterQuantSciece1.pdf to http://www.gps.caltech.edu/~simons/TectonicObservatory/AtwaterQuantSciece1.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:06, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified