Wikipedia:Featured article review/2004 Indian Ocean earthquake/archive1

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was removed by User:Marskell 12:11, 13 October 2008 [1].

---

2004 Indian Ocean earthquake

Review commentary

Notified WP QUAKE, Pepsidrinka, BanyanTree, Golbez, and Arwel Parry. No 1 highest editor, Sengkang, retired.

This was promoted back in 2006. It may have met the criteria then, but not now. Specific issus:

• Cites: this is the main concern. Quite a few paragraphs (and the "Retreat and rise cycle" and "Countries affected" sections) are without them.
• These do not follow the same format.
• I'm sure the prose could also use a touch up.

I will be notifying the top contribs and WP:QUAKE. Your friend Eddy of the wiki^{[citation needed]} 03:49, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Many of the current issues were present during the FAC, so I won't retype them all unless someone engages to copyedit, cite and cleanup (in particular, the external jumps). Lots of issues here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:01, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Hope that we get some help here. If this article was delisted that would stink. —Sunday [speak+] 01:11, 21 September 2008 (UTC)]

Moved repost of previous FAC, already linked here, to talk page. 16:29, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

FARC commentary

Suggested FA criteria concerns are referencing (1c), formatting (2), and prose (1a). Marskell (talk) 09:48, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

• Remove. Agree with above by Editorofthewiki and SandyGeorgia. Many referencing and cleanup issues remain and the above comments have not been addressed. Cirt (talk) 09:59, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
• Remove
  • Prose: needs tuning, also I find it overburdened with statistics in places.
  • Verifiability: I took one representative section as an example: "Event in historical context", and examined the sources given. There are only two. In the "Deadliest earthquakes" table, the data in the table does not match the data given at the only web source listed: [2], and the other reference does not make sense to me: "Not Awa, Japan 1703, alleged 100,000, which is probably a misreading of the 10,000 toll given in Watanabe, H., 1998.". What is "Not Awa, Japan 1703"? A reference from 1703, giving details of an earthquake occurring in 1782, disputed by a reference from 1998? Also, where is the source saying that it is "probably a misreading"? There are several uncited paragraphs.
  • Article structure and focus: needs tuning or pruning. For example, parts of the "Other effects" section read a little like a list of unconnected trivia, and would be better split up into relevant sections; tables and images sometimes crowd together, overlap or displace one another, and could be better organised.
  • Minor issues: external jumps; too many external links; citations not formatted. DrKiernan (talk) 09:28, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.