Wikipedia:Article assessment/Natural disasters/Krakatoa
Assessment of an article under the topic Natural disasters.
Article: Krakatoa
Details of the assessment method can be found at the main page. Feel free to add comments when you assess an article, or use the talk page for discussion.
Review by violet/riga (t)
[edit]- Coverage and factuality: 6
- Covers things well but is not properly referenced
- Writing style: 9
- Well written except for a few small areas
- Structure: 7
- Tiny "Before 1883" section and oddly placed "Earlier eruptions" (merge the two?) - some reordering needed
- Aesthetics: 8
- Some nice images and generally well done, but could do with at least one more image (an overhead map comparison?)
- Overall: 7
Badly needs references and could do with restructuring. violet/riga 23:24, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
Review by MacGyverMagic
[edit]- Coverage and factuality: 8
- Covers things nicely, but contains a contradiction as to whether the eruption was heard or felt in Australia (difference between lead and section of article). Has one listed ref at bottom, a few in text, needs more, but better than some.
- Writing style: 9
- A few odd phrases (as far distant as), and a few jargon words not explained. Spelling, grammar okay. Keeps interest.
- Structure: 9
- Proper table in well-sized lead. Good use of infobox, images and sectioning. Could do with slightly more images.
- Aesthetics: 9
- Nice images and table style and generally attractive.
- Overall: 9
- Good overal, but needs a copyedit and a fix of the references. - Mgm|(talk) 23:07, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
Review by [name]
[edit]- Coverage and factuality:
- Writing style:
- Structure:
- Aesthetics:
- Overall: