User:Eschaef2/1886 Charleston earthquake
 | This is the sandbox page where you will draft your initial Wikipedia contribution.
If you're starting a new article, you can develop it here until it's ready to go live. If you're working on improvements to an existing article, copy only one section at a time of the article to this sandbox to work on, and be sure to use an edit summary linking to the article you copied from. Do not copy over the entire article. You can find additional instructions here. Remember to save your work regularly using the "Publish page" button. (It just means 'save'; it will still be in the sandbox.) You can add bold formatting to your additions to differentiate them from existing content. |
Article Evaluation
[edit]The lead paragraph does a good job of summarizing the important information so that the reader only needs to read a few sentences in order to know the key concepts of the topic. The damage section could be elaborated on greatly, especially with regards to explaining the type of damage that was done to buildings.
There is not much written total about the event which could be revamped itself. The damage and aftermath sections are very small and lack elaboration on the topics in question. We could potentially add other sections as well the more we research the earthquake.
Draft Ideas
[edit]Since the damage section is very small, we would like to add more to the specifics of the damages. Some topics we could discuss in this section are the type of buildings that were destroyed, more prominent buildings that were damaged, and what type of ground caused the most damages to buildings.
In addition, we plan on researching into more depth the 435 total aftershocks. Seismic data was not prevalent at the time but we can do our best to research this information. The aftershocks are only briefly mentioned in the original article so there is definitely more to expand upon in this. This could also be moved from the damage section into the aftermath section along with the to date cost. https://pubs.usgs.gov/circ/1986/0985/report.pdf
Also, there was a news story done and an expert showed how hundreds of people died after the earthquake because of illnesses like fever and breathing in bad chemicals from the rubble. He also explained that people were displaced out of their homes and living on the streets. The only issue with this information would be finding an acceptable way to cite this as a source. https://www.counton2.com/news/latest-news/135-years-later-experts-recall-impact-of-1886-earthquake-that-shook-charleston/
Article Draft
[edit]Lead
[edit]Article body
[edit]Damage
[edit]Building Damage
[edit]
Within the city, many of the buildings sustained damage; some had to be torn down and rebuilt. The most prominent damage was done to buildings constructed out of brick, amounting to 81% of building damage. Buildings that had a wood frame suffered significantly less damage. Another factor that affected the percent of buildings destroyed was what kind of ground these buildings were built on. Buildings constructed on made ground were significantly more likely to be damaged than buildings constructed on solid ground; however, this relationship only occurred in wood frame buildings, with 14% of wood frame buildings built on made ground sustaining damages, compared to 0.5% of wood frame buildings built on solid ground sustaining damages. This relationship was negligible as it pertains to the damages of buildings made of brick. [1]
The most prominent buildings that were destroyed were commercial buildings, while residential buildings sustained significantly less damage. This is due to the fact that commercial buildings were older, had a more prominent top compared to the base of the building, and were made of brick. [1]
Other man-made structures were also damaged as a result of earth splits caused by the earthquake. Railroad tracks in Charleston and nearby areas were snapped and trains were derailed. Dams broke, which caused a lot of flooding in surrounding farms and roads. The ground liquefied in many spots which further damaged many buildings, roads, bridges, and farm fields.[2]
Aftermath
[edit]After the initial earthquake, for the next 30 years, there were 435 total aftershocks from the earthquake. Some of these started directly after the earthquake and were more frequent and the longer after the earthquake, the more spaced out the aftershocks were. [3]
The initial shock in Charleston lasted for about 45 seconds and was extremely destructive, leaving nearly all of the 8,000 city structures with either interior damage or broken windows. The first aftershock followed just ten minutes later, and had the city rumbling once again. In the next 24 hours, at least seven different aftershocks were felt in Charleston and its surrounding areas. The earthquake and its aftershocks caused damage to buildings in cities such as Savannah and Augusta, GA, as well as Columbia, SC, all of which reside more than 100 miles from Charleston. The quake was even felt in cities as far as Boston and Chicago, where plaster fell from ceilings in upper floors of some buildings.[4]
References
[edit]- ^ a b Robinson, Andrew; Talwani, Pradeep (1983-04-01). "Building damage at Charleston, South Carolina, associated with the 1886 earthquake". Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America. 73 (2): 633–652. doi:10.1785/bssa0730020633. ISSN 1943-3573.
- ^ Zalzal, Kate. "Benchmarks: August 31, 1886: Magnitude-7 earthquake rocks Charleston, South Carolina". www.earthmagazine.org. Retrieved 2021-12-01.
{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: url-status (link) - ^ Nuttli, Otto W.; Bollinger, G. A.; Herrmann, Robert B. (1986). "The 1886 Charleston, South Carolina, earthquake; a 1986 perspective".
{{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires|journal=(help) - ^ Smith, Bruce (1986-08-31). "Charleston Still Shaking With Memories of 1886 Earthquake". Los Angeles Times. Retrieved 2021-11-30.
{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: url-status (link) - ^ Otto W. Nuttli, G. A. Bollinger, and Robert B. Herrmann. "The 1886 Charleston, South Carolina, Earthquake - A 1986 Perspective" (PDF). USGS.
{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link) CS1 maint: url-status (link)
Peer Review
[edit]Everything in article is very relevant to the article topic, and all of it was written very well. No information was a distractor, and no information did not pertain to the topic. You did a good job at keeping the article neutral and keeping your own opinions out of your article. There are no biased sentences, and there is no position being picked. All viewpoints are represented and distributed evenly, and I like how you made your own section rather than just adding to a section. All of your citation look great, and the links seem to work well. The sources very fitting for what you are talking about. I see that you have two references but are only using one in the actual article, are you planning on adding more to your article using that reference? The references you are using are good and seem to have natural viewpoint, and don't seem biased at all. All information is to date. Continue adding to your article, and revising it to make it read even better, but this is a great start!! I am a bit confused as to how this draft is different from the original article, but that may be because you have already published these changes.