Wikipedia:Article assessment/Natural disasters/2005 Miyagi earthquake
Assessment of an article under the topic Natural disasters.
Article: 2005 Miyagi earthquake
Details of the assessment method can be found at the main page. Feel free to add comments when you assess an article, or use the talk page for discussion.
Review by violet/riga (t)[edit]
- Coverage and factuality: 2
- Does not state what size the earthquake actually was, except for "early reports indicate..."; might cover everything but there is very little written content; no real references
- Writing style: 2
- Far too few full sentences; wrong tense and out of date
- Structure: 2
- Poorly done
- Aesthetics: 2
- Overall: 2
A very poor article that could be AfD'd based on its content - if it wasn't for the fact that the earthquake itself was notable then it would be gone. violet/riga (t) 14:29, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
Review by DMurphy[edit]
- Coverage and factuality: 4
- Desperately needs citations, but it does seem to have a lot of facts that someone spent a lot of time gathering.
- Writing style: 1
- Uses the wrong verb tense in many cases; appears to be more of an abandoned page that listed current news on the day of the earthquake than anything else. Needs a full re-write.
- Structure: 2
- Has a distinct non-encyclopaedic structure; poor use of sub-headings; in many areas appears to be a list rather than an article.
- Aesthetics: 1
- No diagrams; only picture appears to have been deleted.
- Overall: 2
I have to wonder how an article about a topic as recent as 2005 can be this bad. Perhaps the Japanese wiki has an article on the earthquake that could be used as a basis for a rewrite. -DMurphy 00:14, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
- Coverage and factuality: 4
- Excellent details, but little context for some of them, such as the lists. I won't hold it to such a demanding standard on references, as there is a surfeit of external links which can corroborate the basic meat of the article.
- Writing style: 1
- Most of the article is just lists, and the grammar is rather poor. (Not to mention the article being written in a rather odd tense.)
- Structure: 1
- I see no structure in the article; the subsection headings for "Affected Areas" don't make sense to me. The lead does not summarise the article content.
- Aesthetics: 2
- The only image is broken. The article looks acceptable otherwise, however.
- Overall: 3
It's still better than some crap out there; at least it's comprehensible and the salient facts are there. Johnleemk | Talk 09:32, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
Review by MacGyverMagic[edit]
- Coverage and factuality: 4
- Has external links that could serve as references, but doesn't use inline citation at all. Only covers basic facts reported during the quake that might be outdated now.
- Writing style: 1
- Lead is okay. Rest is collection of incoherent events and facts mostly written in list form. Verb tenses are all over the place. Is struggling to keep my interest.
- Structure: 2
Moderately linked to by other articles, but lacks images and tables and any kind of sectioning common to quake articles.
- Aesthetics: 1
Lack of images, tables and templates and bad structure kills the article aesthetically.
- Overall: 2
Review by [name][edit]
- Coverage and factuality:
- Writing style:
- Structure:
- Aesthetics:
- Overall: