Talk:1977 Bob–Tangol earthquake

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:1977 Bob–Tangol earthquake/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Dawnseeker2000 (talk · contribs) 17:55, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it well written?

   A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:

   B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:

2. Is it verifiable with no original research?

   A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:

   B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:

   C. It contains no original research:

   D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

   B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):

4. Is it neutral?

   It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:

5. Is it stable?

   It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:

6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

Hello again. In the strong ground motion section, should the text "small-amplitude shaking" be changed to "low-amplitude shaking" or did you write it that way to avoid close paraphrasing? Dawnseeker2000 18:19, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

Oh I see now. That's what the source says. I'll change it to "low amplitude" as that's what most native English speakers would say. Dawnseeker2000 22:30, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

The aftermath section is reasonably well written, but I find reading it doesn't have great flow because of the use of short sentences. It won't influence pass or fail, and it can be improved over time, but just something that I noticed. Dawnseeker2000 18:42, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

I have rearranged the sentences so it flows better when reading. The short sentences are still there but the flow should be slightly improved. Dora the Axe-plorer (explore) 00:04, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

It's alright. It's not necessary for a pass, so no need to fix anything. Sometimes better wording just comes to you randomly as opposed to brainstorming about it. Dawnseeker2000 00:22, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Could we please do a copy edit with a focus on locating any close paraphrasing and if any instances are found, rewriting to distance our text from the source text? Dawnseeker2000 12:14, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Will work on this. Dora the Axe-plorer (explore) 12:31, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

I have gone through the sources and fixed these close paraphrasing to the best that I can. Dora the Axe-plorer (explore) 14:43, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

I have a question about the discussion of deaths in the article. In the three-paragraph aftermath section, deaths are mentioned in each of them. Then again, in the response, the topic is raised again. Is there something specific in that final section about why the death toll was mentioned again? It seems like it is just the confusion of the body count in the chaos. Is that it? Dawnseeker2000 16:47, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

I mentioned the NYT earlier reported figures since it would come handy in the next sentence; anticipation for the count to rise and continued recovery efforts. Eventually the final toll rises to 584–665 per later sources. Perhaps if I dated the earlier claim (Dec 21, 77) and move the response section before aftermath, the article reads better. Dora the Axe-plorer (explore) 17:18, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

I'd thought about this a few days ago: the aftermath section reads like a damage section and the response section could actually be an aftermath section. Anyway, the article probably aligns with the GA criteria now, but I didn't want to move ahead without mentioning that potential source of confusion with how the deaths are presented. Dawnseeker2000 17:38, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

I may rename the headers to avoid confusion. Dora the Axe-plorer (explore) 00:22, 11 September 2022 (UTC)