Jump to content

Talk:June 2011 Christchurch earthquake/GA1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA Review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing

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

Reviewer:Dr. Blofeld 14:42, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I will begin review on 24th Aug. Promise!♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:07, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lead
  • "It was centred at a depth of 6.0 km (4 mi), about 13 km (8 mi) from Christchurch, which had previously been devastated by a February 2011 magnitude 6.3 ML aftershock of the major 2010 Canterbury earthquake. " An aftershock months after the 2010 earthquake? Does that qualifiy as an aftershock or separate event?
I've added a ref for Feb being regarded as an aftershock. The main article on the Feb quake explains this in more detail; geologically it was an aftershock, but for insurance purposes it was considered a new earthquake.-gadfium 09:37, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Background
  • "The largest on record was a magnitude 8.2 ML major earthquake that occurred on 23 January 1855 near the Wairarapa plains of the North Island." Citation needed.
I've added a ref.-gadfium 09:37, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The magnitude 7.1 Mw event of 4 September 2010 was by far the strongest earthquake recorded in the Canterbury Region of the island." Citation needed.
Damage evaluation
  • "A three-month reconstruction project was set to be initiated in October 2011" Is rather than was?
  • "Lyttelton Port, a major harbour in the region, suffered additional damage from the tremors and was to perform full engineering assessments" "was to perform full engineering assessments" is a little awkward. Maybe is due to undergo full engineering assessments or underwent full engineering assessments. Perform is not the right word I think.
Relief efforts


GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

  1. Is it reasonably well written?
    A. Prose quality:
    B. MoS compliance:
  2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
    A. References to sources:
    B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
    C. No original research:
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. Major aspects:
    B. Focused:
  4. Is it neutral?
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. Is it stable?
    No edit wars, etc:
  6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
    A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
    B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:

I think this just about meets requirements. In my opinion the prose needs a lot of work but is sufficient for now. I'd imagine as time goes on more information in books and such will become available.♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:07, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]