Wikipedia:Peer review/1992 Nicaragua earthquake/archive1

1992 Nicaragua earthquake[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

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 June 2008.

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because this, while not yet being 5 days old, just passed GA. It is short, sweet, and to the point. I want to see how I can expand this to FA status.

Thanks, I'm an Editor of the wiki^{[citation needed]} 01:29, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch comments: Interesting and generally well done article, what is there is good, but I think it will need to be expanded somewhat for FAC. Here are my suggestions for improvement:

While length is not an FA criterion, comprehensiveness is and my guess is that the article needs to be expanded to be comprehensive enough.
The lead needs to be expanded per WP:LEAD. The lead should be an accessible and inviting overview of the whole article. Nothing important should be in the lead only - since it is a summary, it should all be repeated in the body of the article itself. My rule of thumb is to include every header in the lead in some way.
A model article is often useful for ideas - I note that 2004 Indian Ocean earthquake, which also caused a tsunami, is a FA and should give some ideas on organization, level of detail, etc.
Another possible area for expansion is to add some background and explanatory detail for various eathquoke related terms and theory - see WP:PCR, provide context for the reader
What were the long term effects of the earthquake? Did the laws or building codes change? Were villages rebuilt or relocated? Since this was the first major quake since 1972 there, how did the measures adopted after '72 measure up in this quake?
Refs 1 and 4 need access dates.
Since one of the hardest FA criteria for most articles to meet is professional, near brilliant prose, this needs a copyedit. I would do the expansion first, then expand the lead to summarize the expanded article, then get a copyedit.

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). Yours, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 15:17, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Ealdgyth (talk · contribs)

You said you wanted to know what to work on before taking to FAC, so I looked at the sourcing and referencing with that in mind. I reviewed the article's sources as I would at FAC.
- Current refs 1 and 4 are lacking last access dates.

Hope this helps. Please note that I don't watchlist Peer Reviews I've done. If you have a question about something, you'll have to drop a note on my talk page to get my attention. (My watchlist is already WAY too long, adding peer reviews would make things much worse.) 22:22, 15 June 2008 (UTC)