Wikipedia:Article assessment/Natural disasters/1970 Ancash earthquake

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 2005 Atlantic hurricane season 2005 Kashmir earthquake 2005 Miyagi earthquake Antonine Plague Avalanche Black Death Cascadia Earthquake Cretaceous-Tertiary extinction event Emergency preparedness Good Friday Earthquake Hurricane Andrew Hurricane Floyd Hurricane Hugo Hurricane Iniki Hurricane Katrina Hurricane Nora (1997) Hurricane Pauline Johnstown Flood Krakatoa Mount Vesuvius Napier earthquake Nisqually earthquake Permian-Triassic extinction event Shaanxi Earthquake Supernova Supervolcano Tornado Tunguska event

Assessment of an article under the topic Natural disasters.

Article: 1970 Ancash 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)

• Coverage and factuality: 3

Lots of information presented, but no references at all.

• Writing style: 7
• Structure: 4

Could do with some resectioning

• Aesthetics: 7
• Overall: 5

Some good aspects, but for such a major disaster I would hope to see a much fuller article. violet/riga (t) 13:56, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Review by DMurphy

• Coverage and factuality: 2

No citations, and far too little content. Needs more info.

• Writing style: 8

Pretty well-written, only minor mistakes

• Structure: 6

Not enough info to really evaluate the structure, but considering the current content, it's got average structure. The outbound links could use a bit of work.

• Aesthetics: 5

The pictures are small, but the captions are good. I'm not sure what's available in terms of pictures, but I'm guessing there's SOMETHING better out there. Really could use some diagrams to put the quake in perspective.

• Overall: 5

Considering the amount of information presented, it's pretty good. The main drawback here is the lack of depth and sources. --DMurphy 04:02, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

• Revised review due to changes in image placement. -DMurphy 21:23, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Review by MacGyverMagic

• Coverage and factuality: 4

Covers the basic details, but lacks in the department of the effects it had and has absolutely no citations.

• Writing style: 9
• Structure: 4

Good use of pictures, but the sectioning need improving (there's hardly any) and the article needs to be linked to from more places. Death tolls should be in tables.

• Aesthetics: 4

Images well used, templates and tables are non-existent.

• Overall: 5

Good start, but needs sources and better organization.

Review by [name]

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