Jump to content

Wikipedia:Article assessment/Natural disasters/Nisqually earthquake

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Assessment Article assessment
Natural disasters
Assessment completed
20 February 2006
27 March 2006
Assessments
1970 Ancash earthquake

1976 Tangshan earthquake
1997 Pacific hurricane season
2004 Indian Ocean earthquake Good article
2005 Atlantic hurricane season Good article
2005 Kashmir earthquake
2005 Miyagi earthquake Poor article
Antonine Plague
Avalanche
Black Death Good article
Cascadia Earthquake
Cretaceous-Tertiary extinction event
Emergency preparedness Poor article
Good Friday Earthquake
Hurricane Andrew
Hurricane Floyd Good article
Hurricane Hugo
Hurricane Iniki Good article
Hurricane Katrina
Hurricane Nora (1997)
Hurricane Pauline
Johnstown Flood
Krakatoa
Mount Vesuvius
Napier earthquake
Nisqually earthquake Poor article
Permian-Triassic extinction event
Shaanxi Earthquake
Supernova
Supervolcano
Tornado
Tunguska event

Assessment of an article under the topic Natural disasters.


Article: Nisqually earthquake

Details of the assessment method can be found at the main page. Feel free to add comments when you assess an article, or use the talk page for discussion.

Review by violet/riga (t)

[edit]
  • Coverage and factuality: 3
The external link contains a wealth of information that shows how little this article covers; there are no references
  • Writing style: 8
  • Structure: N/A
The article is too short to rate the structure
  • Aesthetics: N/A
The article is too short to rate the aesthetics
  • Overall: 4

Little more than a stub. violet/riga (t) 21:22, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Review by MacGyverMagic

[edit]
  • Coverage and factuality: 2
No inline citations, but all info is probably covered by external link. Just a few paragraphs. No doubt has major omissions. (Doesn't mention where the quake's name comes from).
  • Writing style: 3
Spelling and grammar are fine, but Seattle should've been mentioned sooner. Doesn't explain the word subduction. Barely keeps interest.
  • Structure: 1
No lead, images, templates or tables. Gets 1 point for being linked to.
  • Aesthetics: 1
Is essentially a stub and looks the part.
  • Overall: 2
Needs massive expansion. - Mgm|(talk) 21:43, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Review by [name]

[edit]
  • Coverage and factuality:
  • Writing style:
  • Structure:
  • Aesthetics:
  • Overall: