Talk:2006 Pangandaran earthquake and tsunami/GA1

GA Reassessment
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the reassessment.''

This article has been reviewed as part of WikiProject Good articles/Project quality task force in an effort to ensure all listed Good articles continue to meet the Good article criteria. In reviewing the article, I have found that this article has massive issues that need to be urgently addressed.
 * It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS):
 * The prose is poor, perhaps 4/10. Many sections are messy, with short stubby paragraphs thrown in with no thought for flow or readability. For some bizarre reason, the article discusses the effects (badly) before discussing the warnings made before it occurred. There is little attempt to connect this to the earthquake of 2004, which had a major effect on the reaction to this one, and very little discussion on the effects and aftermath. It has not been substantially updated to deal with aid efforts or reconstruction and myriad other problems. The lead is also totally inadequate as an introduction.


 * It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * Some of the online references are inproperly formatted.


 * It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * As mentioned above, several important sections of information are missing.


 * It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * a (fair representation): b (all significant views):
 * So badly written that it is difficult to tell.

I will check back in no less than seven days. If progress is being made, the article will remain listed as a Good article. Otherwise, it may be delisted (such a decision may be challenged through WP:GAR). If improved after it has been delisted, it may be nominated at WP:GAN again. Feel free to drop a message on my talk page if you have any questions, and many thanks for all the hard work that has gone into this article thus far. (If you are really busy, let me know and I'll give more time. I need to know however so I can see that someone is interested in addressing these concerns.) Regards--Jackyd101 (talk) 14:12, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
 * It is stable.
 * It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic.
 * a (tagged and captioned): b (lack of images does not in itself exclude GA):  c (non-free images have fair use rationales):
 * Overall:
 * a Pass/Fail:
 * a Pass/Fail:


 * Massive problems and no progress - this article fails GAR.--Jackyd101 (talk) 18:25, 12 February 2009 (UTC)