Jump to content

Wikipedia:Article assessment/Natural disasters/1976 Tangshan earthquake

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Assessment Article assessment
Natural disasters
Assessment completed
20 February 2006
27 March 2006
Assessments
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
Avalanche
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
Krakatoa
Mount Vesuvius
Napier earthquake
Nisqually earthquake Poor article
Permian-Triassic extinction event
Shaanxi Earthquake
Supernova
Supervolcano
Tornado
Tunguska event

Assessment of an article under the topic Natural disasters.


Article: 1976 Tangshan 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: 6
Covers things well, but lacks enough inline citations and a proper reference system
  • Writing style: 7
  • Structure: 8
  • Aesthetics: 6
Needs more images and a location map
  • Overall: 7

Some good content but the lack of inline citations lets it down. violet/riga (t) 14:08, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Review by MacGyverMagic

[edit]
  • Coverage and factuality: 5
Good coverage of the event, but lacks adequate coverage of the aftermath. Also lacks citations and references.
  • Writing style: 5
Contains odd phrases, potentially problematic text ("which amounted to a coup" without citation) and self-reference to the fact this is an article. ("Although one might generally think that there was some sporadic success at giving early warning, it would be best to read the section on earthquake prediction, for further information.")
  • Structure: 8
Odd subheader under early warnings. Uninformative image used. Table puts quake in perspective. Well linked to.
  • Aesthetics: 5
Needs map and better images.
  • Overall: 6
Needs sources and better images. - Mgm|(talk) 10:29, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Review by [name]

[edit]
  • Coverage and factuality:
  • Writing style:
  • Structure:
  • Aesthetics:
  • Overall: