Talk:1838 San Andreas earthquake

Earthquakes Low‑importance

	This article 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
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

California: San Francisco Bay Area Low‑importance

	California portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject California, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of California 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.CaliforniaWikipedia:WikiProject CaliforniaTemplate:WikiProject CaliforniaCalifornia articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	San Francisco Bay Area portal This article is supported by San Francisco Bay Area task force (assessed as Low-importance).

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Jujiberry. Peer reviewers: Nacouwenberg.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 16:30, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

2018 additions

The two extra sections added in 2018 are very difficult to follow and don't in the end say a great deal. I'm going to try to rewrite them as best I can, although I don't have access to the full text of all the journal articles. Mikenorton (talk) 17:07, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have what could be quite a nice article in one of my sandboxes. Had a head of steam going with it about two years ago and just need to get back on track with it and it seems like I'm getting the bug to work on EQ articles again. Dawnseeker2000 20:46, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That would be fantastic and I would be more than happy to collaborate on that. Mikenorton (talk) 16:16, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have a tectonic setting section that can be borrowed from another article. Should I post it or were you interested in starting with that? Dawnseeker2000 23:57, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No sense in reinventing the wheel, though I may well tinker with it once it's in. Mikenorton (talk) 14:18, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, this is what I was thinking on the two sections that were added today:

Tectonic setting – This was written in early 2015 and was borrowed from another article. I don't recall if I was able to locate any sources that were specific to the peninsula segment of the SAF so I would consider the text to be pretty generic.

I think that generic is fine - leave the specifics until the section about the earthquakes itself. I added a little. Mikenorton (talk) 23:43, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Preface – My intention with this article (by tying the different sections together) was going to be to show that the 1836 event that was in a few of the early catalogs was false. There was tsunami event that was supposed to have occurred the Santa Cruz area in 1940 as well and I had planned on summarizing the false events in their own section towards the bottom of the article.

The historical context is important I think, so I reckon that such a section is very useful here - looks fine too. Mikenorton (talk) 23:43, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dawnseeker2000 19:21, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Rewrite of earthquake section

I'm almost ready to start a rewrite of the 2018 additions. I don't have access to Streig et al. (2014), or Toppozada et al. 1998, but I have found another Toppozada reference from 2002 ([1]) which I think is probably sufficient, combined with the 1998 abstract. Mikenorton (talk) 12:13, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And I just found this press release and this summary covering the Streig et al. work. Mikenorton (talk) 12:52, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I've added two sections on the damage and the earthquake. Still missing; the results of stress transfer modelling (Pollitz eta. 2004), a discussion of the aftershocks (or not) (Toppozada et al. 1998 & 2002) and the overall earthquake sequence (mentioning the 1836 and 1868 earthquakes). Mikenorton (talk) 22:34, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've added sections covering the earthquake history of the northern SAF, mentioned the implications of the stress transfer modelling and added something on aftershocks. I hope that I've presented the different views of the earthquakes rupture and magnitude fairly - they don't really all add up to make a fully consistent story. Mikenorton (talk) 14:14, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]