Wikipedia:Peer review/2010 Baja California earthquake/archive1
| Toolbox |
|---|
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I'm wondering wat stands between it and a possible GA. If a GA is out of the question (not so notable in terms of damage and loss of lives), could I get some pointers on pushing this to a B?
Thanks, Buggie111 (talk) 01:01, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
- Comments by Jappalang
- Checklinks (toolbox on the right) show 6 dead links (USGS, Yahoo and San Jose Mercury News); please fix them.
Lede
- Opening sentence is pretty much a run-on sentence. Break it into two sentences.
- "The strongest shaking was felt in the ejido ... at Mercalli intensity scale VIII (Severe)."
- Somehow it reads wrong to me (the shaking was at(?) VIII)...
- Second paragraph is too short on its own; consider merging it to one of the other two paragraphs.
- "... (since the 1992 Landers earthquake (M 7.3)), ... "
- Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Brackets and parentheses, nested brackets should have different bracket types for each level of nesting.
Precursors and foreshocks
- The entire sub-section seems too brief in content to glean any useful information. What was the last quake to have struck this area? What were its effects? Did it cause people to expect (and implement) certain measures against another quake?
Overall (not listing by specific location)
- What makes EQECAT an authority on estimating economic losses?
- Is a chronology of events needed (aside from being what I feel dull and not well organized), or would it be better to describe the events as a whole?
- "It remains to be seen how the ..." is not particularly encyclopaedic.
- Several paragraphs comprise one or two short sentences, making the article a bumpy read.
- One [citation needed] seen, as well as a couple of unreferenced paragraphs.
Images
- File:Laguna Salada fault - USGS map.gif and File:Response imgs for quake.jpg
- No source link (see WP:CITE#IMAGES).
- File:April 2010 Baja California earthquake intensity USGS.jpg
- Why is the latest version not used?
- File:Usgs 201004041854.png
- Source uses a different design.
- That's the current sitrep. I don't know how I'll be able to get a valid source for this image that doesn't change, so I'll try and add a date. Buggie111 (talk) 01:06, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
- Source uses a different design.
- File:Mexico States blank map.svg
- What data or public domain source did the author create the map from?
Right now, I think the article could qualify for B with a little work (adding inline citations to sources, a little bit of reorganization), but attaining GA would require some more work in terms of resolving the above and improving the prose. Jappalang (talk) 08:25, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
- Your edit seemed to fly under my wachlist. I'll look into it when I have time. Buggie111 (talk) 01:05, 8 September 2010 (UTC)