Talk:2011 Virginia earthquake/GA2

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.	Is as well written, concise, to the point as the first review.
	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 third Checklinks review and all references are updated and live.
	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 all 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 the images was corrected from last time. Neither the images nor the video file are "squishing" the text.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	Captions are suitable for the images/videos shown.
	7. Overall assessment.	Passed and promoted! Your next step would be Featured Article Status. Before heading over to WP:FAC, would recommend a peer review. That is the standard for all articles trying to get FA status. The peer review will review the entire article, piece by piece, with a fine-tooth comb. It's a crazy process (trust me, I know), but one that is required to make sure the article can stand up to the test of an FAC. As the GA reviewer, I will be glad to help with the editing, but won't be able to peer review it or review it for FA. Well done to all who edited the article. :) - Neutralhomer • Talk • 07:34, 14 January 2012 (UTC)