Talk:2011 Virginia earthquake/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Neutralhomer (talk · contribs) 00:45, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	Well written, concise, to the point.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	In the lede, it is generally doesn't need to be sourced, just the first mention of that information within the actual article.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	Did a Checklinks review, and numerous are "gone" or "404" and one is about to "expire". Those will need fixed.
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).	You have plenty of in-line sources from reliable sources.
	2c. it contains no original research.	I did not see any original research in the article.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	Topic was clearly addressed, efforts to address other related topics (fracking, the telephone congesting angle, etc.) were made but did not overstep the entire article.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	There wasn't any unnecessary detail in any one section.
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	Found everything to be neutral and in line with NPOV.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	I did not see any ongoing edit wars, just some VERY minor vandalism from vandal-only accounts.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	The placement of some of the images and the one video, could be moved so that they do not "squish" the text of the sections. Some editors find that takes away from the "good" quality of the article.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	Captions are suitable for the images/videos shown.
	7. Overall assessment.	After waiting beyond the 48 hours given for the page and information to be updated (yeah, I forgot, real life problems) and no changes made by the nominator or anyone else for that matter after Gandydancer, I have no choice for to fail this nomination for GA status. If the problems described above are corrected, the article can be renominated for GA status. Sorry.

Comment

NH, I'd recommend failing this. It isn't really stable, information-wise; details of damage and such are still coming out. The impact section is semi-proseline; it's too "location-by-location" – notice lots of "in"... Also, per MOS:LEDE, the lede should not have refs – it should have refs within the sections/non-lede prose. Many refs are formatted inconsistently and the organization of the impact section is also dreadful. There's numerous prose problems and over-referencing. HurricaneFan 25 — 00:51, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As long as the article is updated once the information comes out, such as Tropical Storm Bret (2011) was updated when its TCR was released, the article should be fine. – TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk) 01:02, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The thing is there isn't any central "information" source for the article; it's coming from everywhere. HurricaneFan 25 — 01:03, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I will admit, there are a couple sections about damage and effects (like New England) where it is just line-by-line. The user could take those one-sentence blurbs and put them together into a full paragraph, even combining the sections of "New England", "Midwestern states", and "Southern states", together into one paragraph called "Other Regions". Canada, I would recommend, state in it's own paragraph, as it is another country, but be "beefed up" with more information. I feel the VA, DC, MD sections are well-sourced (some just need updated sources) and have alot of good information. I am willing to leave this on hold while work is done on these sections for a period of 48 hours if work can be done in that timeframe. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 01:45, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I live out in these parts and I lived through the Loma Prieta quake as well, and I can say that even though a broken steeple, etc., seems petty by comparison, this quake was a big deal out here and geologically quite unique as well. I'm in agreement with Neutralhomer re his/her method of combining some of the sections. As for "new information", other than the Washington Monument, I doubt much is available. I did some copy edits, but am not good with formatting refs, so can't help there. Gandydancer (talk) 03:02, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I live about 90 miles from the epicenter (well, over some mountains) and other than the holdup getting the FEMA money for Louisa County, there really hasn't been many updates. When and if they are released, those can be added at anytime. GA isn't the end-all-be-all of things, neither is FA. Things can and are added constantly to FA articles.

@Gandy: I will format the references here in a bit. Getting ready to watch some TV (unless it is broken in by Iowa updates). :) - Neutralhomer • Talk • 03:18, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

After waiting beyond the 48 hours given for the page and information to be updated (yeah, I forgot, real life problems) and no changes made by the nominator or anyone else for that matter after Gandydancer, I have no choice for to fail this nomination for GA status. If the problems described above are corrected, the article can be renominated for GA status. Sorry. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 02:11, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Apart from me fixing one of the broken references that is. Only 48 hours seems a bit short, I got to ref #36 by the evening of the 7th, checking that they were all OK. I'll go on checking them and fixing where necessary - the nominator should probably have alerted some of the main article contributors at the time of nomination. Mikenorton (talk) 22:49, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I am new to this whole review thing, so while I know how to review an article, I don't know the time table for putting things on hold. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 02:17, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The first 72 refs are now checked and replaced where necessary - if no-one else beats me to it, I'll finish them off tomorrow. Mikenorton (talk) 00:23, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
All refs now checked and replaced as necessary - just one behind a paywall that I couldn't check. Mikenorton (talk) 23:10, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
All images now to right of page, avoiding squishing concerns hopefully. Mikenorton (talk) 23:15, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good, looks very good in fact. Great job Mike. :) I recommend putting this back through GAN posthaste and I will put down a note about this page and that my recommendations for the page were met and it should be passed onto GA. Good job to all. :) - Neutralhomer • Talk • 03:13, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What about Midwestern states? Do people think it should be combined the way New England states was (skip sub-titles)? Gandydancer (talk) 14:43, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I went ahead and made those changes. Gandydancer (talk) 22:31, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed another three refs - all OK, at least right now. Mikenorton (talk) 21:30, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Mikenorton! I wish I had been notified of the nom. I had no idea. It's on my watchlist but I guess I missed it. :( Wikipelli ^Talk 16:57, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I wondered where you were! You did a lot of good work on this article.Gandydancer (talk) 22:43, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]