Talk:1902 Turkestan earthquake
Appearance
1902 Turkestan earthquake has been listed as one of the Natural sciences good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. Review: September 5, 2022. (Reviewed version). |
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the 1902 Turkestan earthquake article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Tagging
[edit]@Riverbend21 you tagged WP:TONE in the impact section without identifying or explaining the issue in detail. Please provide an explanation here or in the tag otherwise I will remove it. I'm currently improving the article for a GAN so your inputs will be helpful. Thank you. Dora the Axe-plorer (explore) 09:50, 27 August 2022 (UTC)
- Hey @Dora the Axe-plorer
- I see you've done some copyediting since I tagged the article for "tone". The template is no longer needed. Thank you. Riverbend21 (talk) 10:20, 27 August 2022 (UTC)
GA Review
[edit]GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
- This review is transcluded from Talk:1902 Turkestan earthquake/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: SamBroGaming (talk · contribs) 05:05, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
I will review this SamBroGaming (talk) 05:05, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
- @Dora the Axe-plorer This does not meet any of the quickfail criteria. In terms of well written, lead looks good, the tectonic setting is complex but has wikilinks so that part is fine, the earthquake section had some grammar mistakes but I fixed them, precursor activity section looks fine, impact also had grammar issues but I fixed those as well, aftermath looks fine as well. It appears to comply with the MOS. Verifiability is good, but Xinjiang_Uygur_Zizhiqu_Seismological_Bureau1985 doesn't have any links to it. Why is that? The rest of the sources appear to be reliable and link to somewhere I can find them. It is broad in its coverage, and it stays on topic enough. It has a neutral pov, and there isn't edit warring on it. In terms of illustrated, it does as good a job it can short of having actual photos of the earthquake so it passes in that regard. Basically just explain the reference to me and you get a pass. SamBroGaming (talk) 00:35, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
- That's a source in physical print. There isn't a digitalized version of it available. Dora the Axe-plorer (explore) 00:54, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
- That is an amazing reason. Will pass then lmao SamBroGaming (talk) 00:55, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
- That's a source in physical print. There isn't a digitalized version of it available. Dora the Axe-plorer (explore) 00:54, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
Categories:
- Wikipedia good articles
- Natural sciences good articles
- GA-Class WikiProject Earthquakes articles
- High-importance WikiProject Earthquakes articles
- WikiProject Earthquakes articles
- GA-Class China-related articles
- Low-importance China-related articles
- GA-Class China-related articles of Low-importance
- WikiProject China articles
- GA-Class Kyrgyzstan articles
- Low-importance Kyrgyzstan articles
- WikiProject Kyrgyzstan articles
- GA-Class Central Asia articles
- Low-importance Central Asia articles
- WikiProject Central Asia articles