Wikipedia:Peer review/2008 Chino Hills earthquake/archive1

2008 Chino Hills earthquake

 * A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for August 2008.
 * A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for August 2008.

This peer review discussion has been closed. I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to know what things we can fix before promoting to a GA article (though I realize it's already nominated in GA).

Thanks, Splat5572 (talk) 04:16, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Finetooth comments: This reads well and is getting close to GA quality. I have a few suggestions for improvement.


 * Although this is a short article, the lead should summarize the essence of the main text and not leave out anything important. A good rule of thumb is to include at least a mention of the material in each section of the main text and not to include things in the lead that are not mentioned in the main text. The existing four-sentence lead includes information that is not repeated in the main text, and it says little about tectonics or damage and nothing about aftershocks. See WP:LEAD.


 * Reduce newspaper headlines and other titles in the citations from all caps to what's called "title case". For example, replace "GREATER LOS ANGELES AREA, CALIFORNIA" with "Greater Los Angeles Area, California". The "USGS" part of this citation is fine because it's an acronym, but the title needs fixing.


 * I see some overlinking. The linking is like italics or bolding; it emphasizes a word or phrase. It says "click me" to the reader. If you link too many things, the links lose their effect. On that basis, I would consider unlinking "Southern California" in the lead, and I would certainly unlink "two months" in the tectonics section. Ditto for "service", "amusement rides", and the second link to "Chino Hills" in the damage section. The second link to "foreshock" could go, and you might find some I missed.


 * It's a good idea to insert no-break codes between digits and nouns in constructions like "Over 2,000 people lost power" in the damage section. This prevents the number and the noun (which might or might not be a unit like "feet") from being separated by line-wrap on computer screens. See WP:NBSP.


 * USGS should be spelled out on first use.


 * I noticed the extra white space between Response and References. I've never seen another article that deliberately added an extra space in that way. You might consider taking it out.


 * I saw one distance given in miles but not also in kilometers. I fixed it. I probably missed some other nit-picky things. After you re-write the lead, you might ask someone to do one more top-to-bottom copyedit to look for nits and to improve concision and prose flow where possible before going to GAN.

If you find these few comments to be helpful, please consider reviewing another article, perhaps one from the backlog. That's where I found this one. Finetooth (talk) 21:46, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Most of your concerns are addressed, except de-linking Southern California (because it's a global encyclopedia). Other than that I didn't really get to fix the lead, but I'll do it if I have time. Lead fixed. Thanks for your review! --Splat5572 (talk) 06:30, 16 August 2008 (UTC)