Talk:2011 Virginia earthquake/Archive 2

Virginia first?

I think this article should talk about Virginia first before it talks about places like Delaware. Is there any way we can organize it roughly by how close to the epicenter different locations are?Wrad (talk) 15:29, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

I agree. To that end, I just reordered the Virginia information geographically from the epicenter outward. It just seemed to make sense to present the Mineral/Louisa information first and then work out to Culpeper and Fredericksburg/Spotsylvania and then other places in Virginia. For the same reasons it would seem to make sense to put Virginia higher in the article. Wikipelli ^Talk 15:53, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

• I suggesting putting Virginia and Washington D.C. first as those most affected, and then rest in alphabetical order. (Perhaps MD too).--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 16:05, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

I agree with that. I have found a source for Connecticut :http://articles.courant.com/2011-08-23/news/hc-earthquake-0824-20110823_1_earthquake-reports-of-minor-damage-john-ebel– Tinton5 (talk) 16:17, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Well, wp:bold.... I reordered by geography.... What do you think? Wikipelli ^Talk 16:37, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Looking at it now, I'm more of the opinion that, if the quake was only FELT in a state, that doesn't warrent a section.That's covered elsewhere in a list, I think or at least in narrative that says, "Felt from point x to point y.. Maybe only places that saw damage or (major?) disruption have a section. Thoughts? Wikipelli ^Talk 16:40, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Great point, but looking at the source I provided, and several others if performing a Google news search, Connecticut has experienced damage and evacuations throughout the state, including Hartford and New Haven (both major cities). An evacuation took place at the The Connecticut Tennis Center, home to the New Haven Open, and the game play was suspended while the facility evacuated for about two hours for building inspection. Also note in the article, that quote: "Strong seismic activity in Connecticut is rare. The most severe earthquake in Connecticut occurred in East Haddam on May 16, 1791." This is a historic event: we are talking about hundreds of years since the last major quake in CT. Not only CT, but other states have too (obviously), if we do a bit of research. I really don't think it hurts to add information about individual state damage; the more information, the better. Why hold back? Sure, it is unnecessary to include those states and locations that have not had significant affects, or no affects at all. In addition, I like the layout, where VA and DC come first. – Tinton5 (talk) 17:04, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

I"m comfortable with that. :) Wikipelli ^Talk 17:06, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

I think that as reports come in it may become more manageable to deal with types of damage rather than states. For example, we could have a section on areas where there was structural damage, and then we could have a section on places where there was only minor damage, and then a section on where it was felt. Wrad (talk) 17:13, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm sure that's true... And I think the section on places it was felt is probably going to be taken care of in the first paragraph under "Impact". I think work still might need to be done on ordering the areas under Impact. I tried a bit with VA and DC first, Maryland, Delaware, WV, etc... once we get up into New England, though, I left it alphabetical. I can't help but envision a geography war over which state is closer to Mineral, VA :) I'll leave that for others. But I (and others) wanted to get Virginia and DC up at the top. Wikipelli ^Talk 17:34, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

So, having said that, would it be okay if I or if someone beats me to the punch, adds information about Connecticut and possibly other locations? This is why i came here to discuss it first, rather than just adding it without other's viewpoints. Tinton5 (talk) 17:43, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

I have to say that other editors have put in more time and effort and I'd like to hear what they say. I think my only concern (sorry, Maine) is where there is a section all all the reader finds there is "The earthquake was felt here, here, and here". To me, that's a little much. I think it would be more interesting in the long run to describe how widespread the tremors were and then an explanation of why. I will have to look for sources but I know that I have heard that, because it was an interplate event and because of the nature of the ground(?) on the east coast, it was felt over a very large area. I guess my opinion is that if there was more than minor damage, a state/province should get a section, otherwise, not so much. But I, too, would like to hear from others. Wikipelli ^Talk 17:54, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

I'll go ahead and start the geography war on placement... Delaware is closer than Pennsylvania, especially when you consider the places mentioned are Philadelphia & Allentown. On a serious note though, if DC has its own section, is the DC information needed in the Maryland section anymore or can that be moved/deleted? I didn't notice if it was duplicated info or not.Superman7515 (talk) 18:16, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

What you are probably looking at is the Washington D.C. Temple, which is actually located in MD. I thought the same thing too. Having said that, it should remain there. Tinton5 (talk) 18:20, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Ah! Thank you, you are correct, that's what I saw. I didn't realize it was in Maryland.Superman7515 (talk) 18:35, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

"Foreshock" fear claim

Does the claim that this earthquake might have only been a foreshock have any substance to this article? 24.49.35.99 (talk) 19:00, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

• Are there news sources on that? It doesn't seem like a mainstream story based on what I've seen --the nature of an event like this is that every possible angle to make things look worse will be explored in the news.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 19:28, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

The only thing I found on that was a quote by Marcia McNutt, Director of the USGS: "What the concern is, of course, is that this is a foreshock. If it's a foreshock, then the worst is yet to come". I think the key to her quote is "if". My reading of the quote is simply, "IF this is a foreshock, then there's more to come". There's nothing that indicates her belief that it was just a foreshock. I haven't seen any claims that it was a foreshock. Until we have anything like that, I think it shouldn't be included at all. Wikipelli ^Talk 19:53, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm not a geologist, but I would argue that if the quake was a 5.8 magnitude, and four aftershocks (all weaker than the main seismic event) occurred within twelve hours of the event and nothing yet following that, it isn't any sort of "foreshock", especially in a relatively inactive seismic zone as the eastern United States. Again, that's only the opinion of a layperson with an amateur interest in geology, it's not my area of professional expertise. But, I digress; the claim really has no substance to the article at this time, to answer the original question. Tyrol5 [Talk] 20:27, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

I think in my opinion that it is unusal for there to be aftershocks after the quake that are like 4.2 then go down to 3.2 then 4.5 magnitude. Isn't that odd that it keeps going up and down? I always have thought that it would be going down not up and down. SeeUSGS Earthquakes at epicenter that lists the earthquakes that has happened after the 5.8 magnitude earthquake. I can kind of see a pattern. --72.205.3.20 (talk) 03:30, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Take a look at our aftershock article, it describes the way in which aftershocks typically behave- basically they get less frequent while the magnitudes vary, but stay about 1.1-1.2 magnitude less than the main shock at maximum (in this case that would be about 4.6-4.7).Mikenorton (talk) 17:02, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

And, in this case, the aftershocks have largely been following this pattern, so I would personally be dismissive of the "foreshock" claims (especially in the eastern US seismic zone), but that's my non-professional opinion. Tyrol5 [Talk] 20:26, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Someone needs to delete this article

alrighty. that's enough.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
People are really overreacting over this little thing that is barely a shake. I understand that earthquakes are rare in the east coast, but east coasters should know by now that a 5.8 is nothing to freak out about. It's ridiculous really. Earthquakes that are 5.0 or higher occur everyday in California, Oregon and Washington and you don't see people creating articles for each one. This article is beyond obsurd. Move on people. This was nothing. You have the whole west coast and the rest of the world laughing at you. 99.45.166.113 (talk) 22:56, 24 August 2011 (UTC) We (east coasters) will remember that when California freaks over rain. :) Seriously, though, I believe this has been discussed and the event is notable because it is the largest earthquake on the east coast in over 100 years, it affected an extremely large geographical area, and, yes, it is an extremely rare event on the east coast of the United States. I think it has been tagged for deletion twice and each time consensus was to keep. Perhaps once things have died down people will feel differently. Wikipelli Talk 23:03, 24 August 2011 (UTC) Trust me, we (Californians) do not freak out over rain. Yes, many of us enjoy the possibility of rain every once and a while, but we don't make headlines so the whole world can see, unlike the eastcoasters and their "quake". The news stations today here in California just kept on commenting on how the east coast overreacted. From a poll by one of those stations, 82% of Californians agree the east coast overreacted. With that, I don't think people are gonna be feeling any different anytime soon.99.45.166.113 (talk) 23:11, 24 August 2011 (UTC) Well, as I said, we'll wait and see. Are my neighbors and I overreacting to the minimal damage and excitement (I live 30 miles from the epicenter) of a 5.8 earthquake? Yeah, I'm sure we are, and I wouldn't blame those on the west coast for laughing at us!  :) But I don't think the article itself is overreaction simply because it's recording what is a notable event. Seethis page for previous discussion on deleting. Wikipelli Talk 23:21, 24 August 2011 (UTC) Discussion took place above. Result was Keep. Please try to check discussion before postingyour stuff here as this isn't a forum and editors are usually busy trying to improve it..you know..--Camilo Sanchez (talk) 23:23, 24 August 2011 (UTC) You're all wasting your time trying to improve it.99.45.166.113 (talk) 23:29, 24 August 2011 (UTC) Perhaps you're wasting your time trying to get this article deleted. ;)ctzmsc3|talk 23:39, 24 August 2011 (UTC) I find it pretty humorous that an IP that edit-wars over the name of a fictional soap opera character wants to AfD a significant national event that currently has 70+ references.Chillllls (talk) 01:53, 25 August 2011 (UTC) Was another topic like this really necessary? RagingStallion (talk) 03:53, 25 August 2011 (UTC) IT was not, but douchebags abound in the world.--Milowent • talkblp-r 04:15, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Aftershock

Just had another. See [1]. USGS has a catlog of these, there have been several at 4+ or so in the past 36 hours since the main quake. Just felt this one run through North Carolina. Not sure if this is worth reporting in the article, but it might be useful to add about continuing aftershocks. --Jayron32 05:16, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Clean-up

Reading over the article this morning, I think I'd be in favor of taking out the sections on Maine, Mass., Michigan, NY (?), Connecticut, Ohio, and Canada in lieu of expanding the section dealing with general impact and how widespread it was felt. We're not too far from having it say, "Alaska. The quake was not felt there and no damage was reported." :) There are no refs for NJ. What does anyone think? I think we have sections only for those with reported (and referenced) damage. Just my opinion.Wikipelli^Talk 10:38, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Like editors from around the world, I'm still trying to figure-out how any of this non-event made it onto Wikipedia's main page. It deserves its own article, but, beyond that, it is no more notable than the countless mid-level Earthquakes that occur around the world every year. No one even died!Deterence ^Talk 11:31, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Well, be that as it may... please see extensive discussion above on notability. Wikipelli ^Talk 11:38, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

What? Look at yet another example of informed discussion rendered moot by jackbooted admins? Waste. Of. Time. Deterence^Talk 11:45, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

It made the main page because its from an area of the world that produces a huge share of the world's internet news content, and earthquakes are very uncommon on the U.S. east coast. The fact that opinions differ as to importance among wiki editors is the rule around here, not the exception. You refer to jackbooted admins? Yawn, go find another soapbox to preach to nobody.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 13:27, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

This non-event barely warrants an article let alone a place on Wikipedia's main page. Nevermind the widespread criticism from the rest of the world, even many Americans (especially West-coast Americans) are highly critical of the significance being attached to this event/article on Wikipedia's main page. Today has seen a significant reduction in Wikipedia's credibility. Call it soapboxing if you will, but the rest of us see this as yet another example of America-is-the-centre-of-the-universe boosterism. I am now disengaging from this discussion - it's not like the admins EVER listen to anything we say anyway. Deterence ^Talk 14:29, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

This warrants inclusion due to its rarity in a particular geographic area. It was the largest geologic event in either 67 or 114 years over a large portion of a continent, causing millions of dollars of damage including indefinitely closing the world's tallest stone structure, a national landmark in a country with twice as many English speakers than any other nation (and this is the English-language WP). DLinth(talk) 15:37, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

User:Deterence is butthurt over something that appeared on the main page in the news section, he needs a new hobby.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 17:20, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Merge northern states

(moving my comment down here away from the back-and-forth of keep/delete complaints)

Reading over the article this morning, I think I'd be in favor of taking out the sections on Maine, Mass., Michigan, NY (?), Connecticut, Ohio, and Canada in lieu of expanding the section dealing with general impact and how widespread it was felt. We're not too far from having it say, "Alaska. The quake was not felt there and no damage was reported." :) There are no refs for NJ. What does anyone think? I think we have sections only for those with reported (and referenced) damage. Just my opinion.Wikipelli^Talk 10:38, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Getting back to the issue of deleting or merging information from northern states and Canada, I support merging these sections rather than having separate sections for each individual state. The individual state sections served a purpose while we were still determining the extent of damage in these areas. Now that it's determined that the damage was minimal I think they can be merged.--Crunch (talk) 13:33, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Hi Crunch. I am from Minnesota but was living in California when they had their last big one and I was just stunned with the amount of movement. I'm a nurse and had just arrived for the afternoon shift when it hit, and experiencing my first quake I thought to myself, "I can't believe they go through this all the time!". So I was so relieved when a 90 year old California woman said, "Well, I've never felt anything like this before!". But now I live in Maine and contrary to what a few editors on this talk page continue to argue, it is a big deal!. Considering that the article remains quite short and that we've experienced nothing like this for over 100 years, I tend to think that the way the information is being presented, with separate sections, works quite well.Gandydancer (talk) 14:26, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

GAN Quick Fail

I have quick-failed this article since it is still very new with high editing volume and thereby does not meet the stability criterion. WTF? (talk) 17:38, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Definitely agree with the quick-fail. This is way too fresh to go to any GA nomination, especially when numerous geologists are actively researching this earthquake. –MuZemike20:56, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Reverted move to 2011 east coast earthquake

• I reverted an undiscussed move of the article to 2011 east coast earthquake. "east coast", notwithstanding the lack of capitalization, seems too non-specific since there are many east coasts in the world. Virginia is the epicenter location which is a critical fact, and naming is similar to articles like 2008 Illinois earthquake.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 17:44, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. Article should remain titled as is.--JayJasper (talk) 17:46, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

completely agree.... Wikipelli ^Talk 17:47, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

I also agree. Sources seem to use both "Virginia earthquake" and "East coast earthquake" almost equally (from what I could find), but east coast has many meanings, and the papers were using it in a local sense, and Wikipedia, being a global resource, needs to be more specific than that. That's my two cents on it at least. - SudoGhost 17:49, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Regardless of where damage occurred, the epicenter was Virginia, so the the most accurate name for the quake is 2011 Virginia earthquake.--MONGO 22:15, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from 98.218.170.71, 25 August 2011

Replace the following: Four aftershocks, of magnitudes 2.8, 2.2, 4.2 and 3.4, occurred within 12 hours of the main tremor;[4][5][6][7][8] a fifth, of magnitude 4.5, occurred nearly 36 hours after the quake.[9]

With: Four aftershocks, of magnitudes 2.8, 2.2, 4.2 and 3.4, occurred within 12 hours of the main tremor.[4][5][6][7][8] Five more aftershocks, of magnitudes 2.5, 4.5, 2.7, 2.3, and 2.4, occurred between 34 to 46 hours after the initial earthquake.[79][9][80][81][82]

9. 4.5 1:07 AM http://earthquake.usgs.gov/earthquakes/recenteqsus/Quakes/usc0005jg1.php

79. 2.5 12:06 AM http://earthquake.usgs.gov/earthquakes/recenteqsus/Quakes/se082511b.phph 80. 2.7 1:59 AM http://earthquake.usgs.gov/earthquakes/recenteqsus/Quakes/se082511a.php 81. 2.3 2:37 AM http://earthquake.usgs.gov/earthquakes/recenteqsus/Quakes/se082511c.php 82. 2.4 11:27 AM http://earthquake.usgs.gov/earthquakes/recenteqsus/Quakes/se082511d.php

98.218.170.71 (talk) 18:24, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

no opinion on this particular edit, but it makes me wonder about the point where the article simply says that there were 'numerous' aftershocks from this time to that time, etc. Is there precedent? It is a little like listing individual states. Do we have to list them all ad nauseum? Wikipelli ^Talk 18:44, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

I also agree that listing every single aftershock might start to get tedious.Topher385 (talk) 20:04, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

If you intend listing aftershocks as small as magnitude 2.2 then you're going to need some more paper. A lot more paper. No wonder the West-coasters are laughing at you. Deterence ^Talk 23:40, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Not done: The section has already been changed to other wording now.--Jnorton7558 (talk) 03:39, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Error in article... number of aftershocks within 36 hours.

I know this is a current event, however the article missed one aftershock within the first 36 hours. According to http://earthquake.usgs.gov/earthquakes/recenteqsus/Maps/US2/37.39.-79.-77_eqs.php it shows the 4.5 aftershock as being the 6th aftershock, not the 5th. 132.250.22.5 (talk) 19:06, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Looking at that now. I'm also wondering whether this level of aftershock activity is unusual. We could conceivably be adding lots of aftershocks for awhile. I wonder if it's not better to simply say"there were a number of aftershocks which ranged in intensity from x.y - a.b for xx hours after the initial event." I believe the tendency with the article now is to condense and streamline. But, again, I don't know if this many aftershocks is normal or not. If it is, I think they shouldn't all be listed. Wikipelli ^Talk 19:58, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Keep things streamline --Guerillero | My Talk 20:05, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

A lot of aftershocks are quite the norm. See for instance 2010 Haiti Earthquake for an example. I think it reads just fine as it is. Gandydancer (talk) 20:37, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

I just condensed the aftershock info to give a range of intensity and time rather than listing each aftershock... streamlining and condensing. Wikipelli ^Talk 22:47, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Lack of tsunami

I recently removed a short section on the lack of a tsunami associated with this earthquake, but I see that it has returned. I think that it's common knowledge that most tsunamis result from sub-sea earthquakes, so I don't think that we need to mention something that we wouldn't have expected in the first place. Mikenorton (talk) 22:08, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

concur.... good move... otherwise it would be ok to say: "earthquakes never produce snowstorms and this one didn't either." it would be never-ending. Wikipelli ^Talk 22:14, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

sorry, that was too flip... sometimes earthquakes DO produce tsunamis.... but this one didn't and i remain opposed to including things it didn't do. Wikipelli ^Talk 22:35, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

No objection to omitting this. I had added this item, and subsequently reworded and reinserted it, as an informational/educational tangent since few East Coast (U.S.) residents have personally experienced either a noticeable earthquake or a tsunami, but nearly everyone here has heard, read, or seen video of various recent major tsunami-causing earthquakes, such as those in or near Indonesia, Haiti, and Japan.--LarryMorseDCOhio (talk) 00:53, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Archive Request

Could someone please archive this disscussion because there have been alot of disscusion on this page.--72.205.3.20 (talk) 03:46, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

I think this is a good idea. The discussion hasn't been going on very long in terms of time, but it's at 70K now and long to scroll through. There are current discussions, though... I think we should archive everything up to "Virginia first". Any thoughts? Wikipelli ^Talk 04:15, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

That seems reasonable, given the massive & ever-increasing lengthiness of the page.--JayJasper (talk) 04:30, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

I concur with that idea. Tinton5 (talk) 05:22, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Only archive discussions that have been conclusively marked as solved. This page is only 3 days old guys. elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (be free) 05:57, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

I think all of the discussions/problems/requests prior to "Virginia First.." have been solved/concluded/rendered moot by editing. Unless there's great objection, I'd like to archive (copy/paste archive) discussions prior to that. Wikipelli ^Talk 13:03, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

 Done -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 00:35, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

List of earthquakes in the United States

I have set up List of earthquakes in the United States as a sortable wikitable. The cells in the table will need filling. I have already made a rather gallant start. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 00:38, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

miles/kilometers

I changed one of the unit conversions just now so they're all consistant, but got to thinking, doesMOS:CONVERSIONS suggest that miles be the primary unit? Doesn't really matter... it's more about learning how Wikipedia works and this article has been a great learning experience. Wikipelli ^Talk 16:38, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

No opinions offered yet.. The only thing keeping me from making miles the primary unit is the fact that so much of the data comes from USGS which give km first and mi in parens. I still think miles, though. If no one has big problems with it, i'll change all the primary units to miles tomorrow morning. Wikipelli ^Talk 22:11, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Looking at other quake articles, it seems that if the quake occurred in the U.S. it is acceptable to use miles, etc. for the more familiar quakes but to use the more scientific metric terms for the less-known ones. So miles would be appropriate here. Gandydancer (talk) 13:09, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Reminder

Please remember to use citation templates instead of bare URLS for better formatting. Thanks to all. –Tinton5 (talk) 17:40, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

I think I converted all bare links into {{CiteWeb}} templates--Guerillero | My Talk19:27, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Lindyknapp, 28 August 2011

Please add the latest aftershock as according to USGS.gov Another aftershock occurred on August 27, 2011 at 5:02AM EDT and measured a 2 on the Richter scale.

Lindyknapp (talk) 13:33, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

I suggest that this request be rejected. While the USGS does record the aftershock, this is the 11th one and I think we've reached the point where we should list only the largest and time span over which the aftershocks were recorded. (eg: Numerous aftershocks were recorded during (time span).... the largest of these were (largest aftershocks) which occurred (dates)) Or words to that effect. Discussions above favor streamlining rather than listing all aftershocks. Rather like what's in the lead, but with more detail on the dates and times of the largest and perhaps those that followed within 12 or 24 hours. Wikipelli ^Talk 15:51, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Just to illustrate, we're up to 16 aftershocks now. 5 in the last 12 hours.[2] Wikipelli ^Talk 08:13, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Not done: Not practical to list each aftershock. Wording of section has been changed. Wikipelli ^Talk 09:43, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Edit Request for the New Jersey section

In Gloucester County, NJ, there was significantly more harm than a couple minor gas main leaks. Due to damage done by the quake, the municipal government of Woodbury is now seeking to raze the historic Colonel George Gill Green Opera House, which was build in 1880.

http://www.nj.com/gloucester-county/index.ssf/2011/08/woodbury_city_pushes_for_gg_gr.html — Preceding unsigned comment added byBlarghity (talk •contribs) 06:46, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

 Done -- Wikipelli ^Talk 09:54, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

It sounded to me more like they were looking for an excuse to take that building down.Gandydancer (talk) 12:39, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

I know.. I went back and forth on it, honestly. My final thinking was that a lot of the damage seen from the earthquake was 'last straw' for older buildings. I wasn't sure where to draw the line or if that can really be known. Did the building in Culpeper develop cracks because of its age or because of the earthquake? Most likely, a combination. Houses that had roofs collapse - poor construction or earthquake? Generally the sources that I'm finding are quicker to blame the earthquake. They know that before the earthquake the wall was fine, after the earthquake there were cracks.. sooo... :) Also thinking about injuries that I'm reading about locally. Kids at the school in Louisa county twisted ankles on their way out of the building because of the earthquake. So, is that earthquake injury or clumsiness? I'm open to opinions!  :) Wikipelli ^Talk 12:52, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Impact

The addition today of information on Impact looks good, except the source cited doesn't support, "A magnitude 5.5 eastern U.S. earthquake can usually be felt as far as 300 miles (500 km) from where it occurred, and sometimes causes damage as far away as 25 miles (40 km).". Is there another source for this? Wikipelli^Talk 11:53, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

It's from the summary section of ref1. Mikenorton (talk) 12:05, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Citations 38 and 41

Citations 38 and 41 have a cite error. How would we go about fixing it? Tinton5(talk) 18:41, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

By looking back at an earlier version. Someone trimmed that section, removing a couple of the full refs, thus causing the cite error. Fixed. Mikenorton (talk) 19:18, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

The Pentagon was NOT Evacuated

The caption under the picture of people outside the Pentagon was corrected, but now the article says the Pentagon was evacuated. It wasn't evacuated. I work here, I know. Yes, many people left after the earthquake. Yes, it was initially reported that the Pentagon was evecuated. But it was not. Even the offices in the corridor where the pipe burst were not evacuated. They were asked to stay in their offices while it was cleaned up. Maybe this is a minor point, but the article is not accurate as it is. The Pentagon was NOT evacuated after the earthquake. — Preceding unsigned comment added by134.11.154.97 (talk) 15:36, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Have to agree. The source cited here (CNN) makes me believe that the reporter was in error and reported the evacuation just because people were leaving - nothing that indicates she knew of an order. A ref I found back in the discussion archive ([3]) looks like a better one to use in the article. Wikipelli ^Talk 17:33, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

This source [4]says it was evacuated but people were told they could stay inside if they wanted to. Hmmm, when is an evacuation NOT an evacuation? MSNBC[5]says, "parts of the pentagon were evacuated". Anyway, I made the change to the article. I can't find anything that says that the building was officially evacuated. Wikipelli ^Talk 17:44, 2 September 2011 (UTC)