Talk:April 2011 Miyagi earthquake/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Nanobear (talk) 19:50, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

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

   The article is reasonably well-written, but there are a lot of things that could be improved, for example in the lead "No major damage was reported" -> "there was no major damage" (if true). Enough time should have passed to know if there was major damage or not. Also the prose should be changed to past form: "are confirmed dead" -> "were confirmed dead", etc (it's no longer a current event). "All warnings and alerts were canceled within 90 minutes, however" should probably be changed to something like "Within 90 minutes, all warnings were canceled, and no tsunami occurred" (if true; I think it's much more important whether a tsunami did arrive or not than the cancellation of warnings). I think the "earthquake" and "effects" chapters should be split into subchapters - there is currently too much diverse information in these chapters for a good flow. The subchapter addition should be combined with expansion, see below.

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):

   It's a quite short article, I think too short for GA. Some suggestions for expansion: 1) more specific information about the damage, 2) where exactly and how the other 3 victims died, 3) where were the 5 coal plants located, 4) reactions by officials and scientists to the quake, etc.

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):

   There is only one image (the map). I think we should at least have relevant photograph, for example of the damage done by the quake (although it can be difficult the separate the aftershock damage from the main quake damage).

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   Currently the article does cover the main facts, but just doesn't seem to have enough information yet for a GA. It's easy think of material that could be added and should reasonably be in the article. The article also definitely needs a relevant photograph (I think it should be possible to get one).