Talk:1556 Shaanxi earthquake/GA1

GA Review
This review is transcluded from Talk:1556 Shaanxi earthquake/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Its an interesting article but I think there are a few improvements to be made. I would remove any spaces or carriage returns after the end of a sentence and before the ref tags, so that each reference is butted up against the last word or punctuation mark to the left - this will make things neater. I think the lead contains slightly too much information, information that could be used in the sections below. Also, the link to the disambiguation page is red - perhaps this is as yet, unnecessary?

I'm not sure exactly what was destroyed from the 520 mile area - I presume property and infrastructure, but could you expand on this? The nuclear weapon quote seems somewhat dubious - is there a recognised method of comparing such disasters to the yield of a nuclear weapon? The cost section makes no mention of it, I would suggest that the nuclear quote should perhaps be in this section, and not the lead. I'm not sure the list of deadliest earthquakes table is required - especially as you have a link to this in the 'see also' section. I think you could also do with a few more references. Parrot of Doom (talk)

Failed "good article" nomination
This article failed good article nomination. This is how the article, as of July 17, 2008, compares against the six good article criteria:


 * 1. Well written?: fail - too ambiguous in places, grammar needs tidying up. Please refer to WP:MOS
 * 2. Factually accurate?: pass, although the nuclear weapon comment needs expanding upon, as does the 520 mile wide area (what was destroyed?)
 * 3. Broad in coverage?: fail - the article focusses too much on the immediate impact (deaths), try to expand upon the social impact, loss of infrastructure, time taken to rebuild.
 * 4. Neutral point of view?: pass
 * 5. Article stability? pass
 * 6. Images?: fail - you should find images of the caves and cliffs under discussion, or the area of destruction as it appears today

As in my initial review I think it has promise, however, the article needs to be much more descriptive than it currently is, leaving the reader in no doubt as to exactly what happened, and the scale of the damage, and to be able to visualise the event as it occurred. Please feel free to contact me on my talk page if you wish to discuss this further, once these issues have been dealt with you should resubmit the article for GA review.

When these issues are addressed, the article can be renominated. If you feel that this review is in error, feel free to take it have it reassessed. Thank you for your work so far.— Parrot of Doom (talk) 10:32, 17 July 2008 (UTC)