Wikipedia:Article assessment/Natural disasters/Hurricane Katrina

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Assessment Article assessment
Natural disasters
Assessment completed
20 February 2006
27 March 2006
1970 Ancash earthquake

1976 Tangshan earthquake
1997 Pacific hurricane season
2004 Indian Ocean earthquake Good article
2005 Atlantic hurricane season Good article
2005 Kashmir earthquake
2005 Miyagi earthquake Poor article
Antonine Plague
Black Death Good article
Cascadia Earthquake
Cretaceous-Tertiary extinction event
Emergency preparedness Poor article
Good Friday Earthquake
Hurricane Andrew
Hurricane Floyd Good article
Hurricane Hugo
Hurricane Iniki Good article
Hurricane Katrina
Hurricane Nora (1997)
Hurricane Pauline
Johnstown Flood
Mount Vesuvius
Napier earthquake
Nisqually earthquake Poor article
Permian-Triassic extinction event
Shaanxi Earthquake
Tunguska event

Assessment of an article under the topic Natural disasters.

Article: Hurricane Katrina

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[edit]

  • Coverage and factuality: 9
Covers everything and is well referenced
  • Writing style: 9
  • Structure: 7
Perhaps too much content in some areas
  • Aesthetics: 8
The death toll table is too hard to read
  • Overall: 8

Come along way from when it started, but still needs work. violet/riga (t) 20:07, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Review by DMurphy[edit]

  • Coverage and factuality: 10
Cited well, if it were any more complete it'd need its own portal.
  • Writing style: 8
Like many other articles written during the event, it's segmented and needs a rewrite in some areas to merge the many facts into coherent paragraphs. One of the few articles suffering from too many facts.
  • Structure: 7
As it says on the talk page, this article is very long and still needs to be split into sub-articles. The Hurricane Katrina timeline and Katrina template could stand to be organized a bit better and perhaps would better serve the article if presented in a non-chronological format with links to all related articles.
  • Aesthetics: 6
This is definitely where the article lacks most. The format of the article differs from section to section, and the TOC needs desperately to be compressed somehow. The infobox at the top of the page is not particularly pleasing or informative, nor are the majority of the pictures. The various diagrams also need to be re-worked for ease of use.
  • Overall: 8

-DMurphy 21:12, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Review by [name][edit]

  • Coverage and factuality:
  • Writing style:
  • Structure:
  • Aesthetics:
  • Overall: