Jump to content

Wikipedia:Article assessment/Natural disasters/Tunguska event

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Assessment Article assessment
Natural disasters
Assessment completed
20 February 2006
27 March 2006
Assessments
1970 Ancash earthquake

1976 Tangshan earthquake
1997 Pacific hurricane season
2004 Indian Ocean earthquake Good article
2005 Atlantic hurricane season Good article
2005 Kashmir earthquake
2005 Miyagi earthquake Poor article
Antonine Plague
Avalanche
Black Death Good article
Cascadia Earthquake
Cretaceous-Tertiary extinction event
Emergency preparedness Poor article
Good Friday Earthquake
Hurricane Andrew
Hurricane Floyd Good article
Hurricane Hugo
Hurricane Iniki Good article
Hurricane Katrina
Hurricane Nora (1997)
Hurricane Pauline
Johnstown Flood
Krakatoa
Mount Vesuvius
Napier earthquake
Nisqually earthquake Poor article
Permian-Triassic extinction event
Shaanxi Earthquake
Supernova
Supervolcano
Tornado
Tunguska event

Assessment of an article under the topic Natural disasters.


Article: Tunguska event

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: 7
Covers it well but is not referenced
  • Writing style: 8
Generally very good but some slightly confused sentences
  • Structure: 9
Well-structured, though the "Select Eyewitness Reports" may need some work
  • Aesthetics: 8
Generally very good, but some parts of the article are purely text and could do with an image, particularly "Speculative hypotheses" and "Tunguska event in fiction"
  • Overall: 8

A good article, but let down by far too few references. violet/riga (t) 23:37, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Review by MacGyverMagic

[edit]
  • Coverage and factuality: 9
Needs explanation of some jargon and sorting and inline use of references. (Sources aren't named as such). Material is properly covered.
  • Writing style: 8
Few odd phrases. Some possible POV and some explanations and expansion needed. All fixable. Holds interest.
  • Structure: 7
No tables or templates. Good use of images, but might need slight reorder. Kind of witness report heavy. Lead could be longer. Sections are fine, but could use slight reorder.
  • Aesthetics: 9.
No tables and templates, but excellent image use.
  • Overall: 8
Generally good, but could use some touch ups and minor fixes.

Anyone who wants more details about the things I mentioned to fix the article, can ask for it on my talk page. - Mgm|(talk) 21:29, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Review by [name]

[edit]
  • Coverage and factuality:
  • Writing style:
  • Structure:
  • Aesthetics:
  • Overall: