Talk:June 2011 Christchurch earthquake/GA1

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

Reviewer: ♦ Dr. Blofeld  14:42, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

I will begin review on 24th Aug. Promise!♦ Dr. Blofeld  17:07, 23 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Lead


 * "It was centred at a depth of 6.0 km (4 mi), about 13 km (8 mi) from Christchurch, which had previously been devastated by a February 2011 magnitude 6.3 ML aftershock of the major 2010 Canterbury earthquake. " An aftershock months after the 2010 earthquake? Does that qualifiy as an aftershock or separate event?
 * I've added a ref for Feb being regarded as an aftershock. The main article on the Feb quake explains this in more detail; geologically it was an aftershock, but for insurance purposes it was considered a new earthquake.- gadfium 09:37, 24 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Background


 * "The largest on record was a magnitude 8.2 ML major earthquake that occurred on 23 January 1855 near the Wairarapa plains of the North Island." Citation needed.
 * I've added a ref.- gadfium 09:37, 24 August 2011 (UTC)


 * "The magnitude 7.1 Mw event of 4 September 2010 was by far the strongest earthquake recorded in the Canterbury Region of the island." Citation needed.
 * Damage evaluation


 * "A three-month reconstruction project was set to be initiated in October 2011" Is rather than was?
 * Not too sure. How about "was scheduled to begin in October 2011"? ★ Auree  talk 04:06, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
 * "Lyttelton Port, a major harbour in the region, suffered additional damage from the tremors and was to perform full engineering assessments" "was to perform full engineering assessments" is a little awkward. Maybe is due to undergo full engineering assessments or underwent full engineering assessments. Perform is not the right word I think.
 * Changed to "opted to initiate full engineering assessments" ★ Auree  talk 04:06, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Relief efforts


 * NZ$285,000 and the two Australian dollar figures need US dollar conversions like above.
 * Done. Sorry about the delayed replies and thanks for reviewing! ★ Auree  talk 04:06, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria


 * 1) Is it reasonably well written?
 * A. Prose quality:
 * B. MoS compliance:
 * 1) Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
 * A. References to sources:
 * B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
 * C. No original research:
 * 1) Is it broad in its coverage?
 * A. Major aspects:
 * B. Focused:
 * 1) Is it neutral?
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * No edit wars, etc:
 * 1) Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
 * A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
 * B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:

I think this just about meets requirements. In my opinion the prose needs a lot of work but is sufficient for now. I'd imagine as time goes on more information in books and such will become available.♦ Dr. Blofeld  10:07, 27 August 2011 (UTC)