Talk:2008 Chino Hills earthquake/GA1

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

Hi! I'll be reviewing this article for GA status, and should have the full review up within a couple of hours. Dana boomer (talk) 18:30, 18 August 2008 (UTC)


 * GA review (see here for criteria)


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS):
 * The lead could probably be a little bit longer. Perhaps add a sentence to the second paragraph about the number of fore- and after-shocks?
 * Also, the second paragraph of the lead needs some work. In the first sentence you say the earthquake "urged some amusement park facilities to shut down their rides".  Earthquakes are not sentient, they cannot "urge" anything.  Perhaps "caused"?  Also, the "Nonetheless" at the beginning of the second sentence makes no sense.  Perhaps it could be reworded as "The earthquake led".
 * In the "Damage and injuries" section, the last sentence of the first paragraph reads oddly. You have "However, the high volume of telephone use following the shock overloaded and disrupted its service into the afternoon."  Could it be reworded to something like "However, the high volume of telephone use following the shock overloaded provider capacity and disrupted service into the afternoon."?
 * Same section, third paragraph. "A gap was reported"?  What kind of gap?  I may just be missing something completely, but do you mean some of the pavement disappeared, or a pothole came into being, or there was a landslide, or something else?  More clarity would be appreciated.
 * Same section, same paragraph. "the building was closed for repairs thereafter." This reads awkwardly. Perhaps reword to "afterwards, the building was closed for repairs and as of August 2008 had not yet reopened."
 * "Response" section, last paragraph. "...scheduled to occur in November 2008, increased significantly." Perhaps say "increased significantly in the aftermath of the earthquake".  Just to increase clarity a little bit.
 * Your concerns are already addressed. --Splat5572 (talk) 21:50, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars etc.:
 * 1) It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * 1) It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * Pass/Fail:

Overall, a very well-written, well-referenced and well-illustrated article. The issues detailed above are minor prose and MOS things, which should be able to be fixed very easily. I am putting the article on hold for seven days in order to allow these things to be addressed before I pass the article. If you have questions, I can be contacted here on the review page (I have it watchlisted) or on my talk page. Dana boomer (talk) 19:14, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

It looks like most of my concerns have been addressed, and so I am passing the article. For further improvement of the article, I would suggest expanding the lead by one or two sentences. Dana boomer (talk) 00:55, 20 August 2008 (UTC)