Talk:1906 Valparaíso earthquake/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Ealdgyth - Talk 15:05, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

I'll be reviewing this article shortly. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:05, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

• General comments:
  • There is no need add citations for information in the lead that is present and cited in the article body.
  • Per WP:LEAD, information in the lead should also be present in the body of the article - the information on the epicenter and magnitude is not present
  • A general comment about the prose - there are too many short one or two sentence paragraphs. These make the prose flow choppy and the article hard to read.
  • Likewise, many of the sentences themselves are very short, this gives a choppy feel to the prose. An example: "The earthquake was felt from Tacna, Peru to Puerto Montt. Reports said the earthquake lasted four minutes. A tsunami was also generated." This could be reworded to something like "During the four minutes of the quake, it was felt from Tacna, Peru to Puerto Montt. A side effect of the quake was the generation of a tsunami from the event."
• Lead:
  • Link - tsunami.
  • Combine some of the paragraphs into one or two total paragraphs, please.
• Tectonic setting & Prediction:
  • Suggest you combine this section and the "prediction" section into one section "Background".
  • Also, there is no need to reprint the entire letter from Middleton, it is enough to have the information that he published a letter.
  • Please give some explanation of what a megathrust event is, also what a convergent boundary is.
  • Likewise, how often do earthquakes occur in the area? Is this the first earthquake recorded for Valpariso?
• Earthquake characteristics:
  • As mentioned above, include the epicenter and magnitude on the Richter scale in this section.
  • "The 30-second time gap between the Aleutian and Chilean earthquakes is thought to be coincidental, with no causal link between the two."???? What Aleutian earthquake? It's not linked nor is it explained, there needs to be more information given on this, as it's just random trivia currently.
• Damage:
  • who did the translation on the quote from the El mercurio article? This needs stating.
  • You say in the lead that the figure for dead is from the University of Chile, this needs stating in the article body. Are there other figures from other sources?
  • In general, I'm not very happy with the amount of information given on the effects of the damage. Where were most of the deceased located? How many homes were damaged? How many died from diseases afterwards? What was the total value of destroyed property? Where did the fires go?
• Relief efforts:
  • In general, as above. There is no context given for this information, it's just a random string of events. We hear that the President visited - did they promise things? Did the promises get fulfilled? Was the Board of Reconstruction successful? HOw long did it take to rebuild? HOw much was spent? what countries contributed? Was the Seismological service a direct result of the earthquake? Did this result in better preditictions?
• Normally I do not easily quick fail articles, and given the time it's taken to get a review, I'm not going to do that here, but it's very close to quick fail territory, and it's going to take a LOT of work to bring this up to GA status. There is a lot of information that needs adding, and I've not really even reviewed the prose in depth yet. Nor have I really reviewed the sourcing either, as it's going to have to change to get the expansion needed. I'll put this on hold, but it may take a bit to get it up to GA status, and if progress isn't being made, I'll just go ahead and fail it. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:28, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

• • Per this edit on my talk, I'm going ahead and failing this article. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:03, 8 January 2011 (UTC)