Wikipedia:Peer review/2008 Sichuan earthquake/archive1

2008 Sichuan earthquake

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 it seems ready for GA, though neutrality and the length of the article is disputed. Any small errors like grammar are also appreciated if mentioned. Thanks, haha169 (talk) 00:36, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

SGGH

My thoughts:

Could "Great Sichuan Earthquake" be bold texted as it is a common name for the event? Particularly as Wenchuan earethquake is bolded
- Okay. Fixed --haha169 (talk) 16:15, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The first sentence could be split, it is a little complicated with all the brackets and units etc.
- It is, but its possible to figure it out upon closer inspection. I'm quite frankly at loss for a better way to split it, though. That would involve some word changing in which I'm not so good at. --haha169 (talk) 16:15, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"Parsons actually told the New York Times that there was a "heightened" risk of large aftershocks." has no cite.
- Fixed Actually, all it needed was the same ref above it. I don't know how that was missed. --haha169 (talk) 16:15, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
first two sentences of "tectonics" section can be merged into one paragraph.
- But the second sentence is in uniform with "According to the British Geological Survey:", in the sense that they are both "titles". That wouldn't look so good on the right side of the article. --haha169 (talk) 16:15, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Image captions could be expanded more in places. Particularly the USGS shake map, which although not too complicated might profit from some caption explanation.
- Fixed. --haha169 (talk) 16:07, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Wikilink the olympic games if you have not done so elsewhere above its mention at the end of "immediate aftermath".
- Yup. Wikilinked second paragraph of "Immediate Aftermath", text: 2008 Summer Olympics. --haha169 (talk) 16:15, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"The earthquake left at least 5 million people without housing, although the number could be as high as 11 million.[68]" this is mentioned twice, perhaps a sentence explaining why the estimate could rise so?
first three sentences of "property damage" don't need to be three seperate paragraphs
- Fixed --haha169 (talk) 16:28, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Last para of "property dammage" has no citations
- Fixed --haha169 (talk) 16:28, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"Military and nuclear damage" as per WP:MOS citations go after punctuation, not before.
- Fixed Yeah, I know. I'm not even sure why that section is there, because the only reliable source I see is Google, while the rest is all speculation... --haha169 (talk) 16:28, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"Rescue efforts" first para is too short to stand alone
- Fixed + transitioned --haha169 (talk) 16:28, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Wikilink "14 May 2008"
- Fixed --haha169 (talk) 16:28, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Last two paragraphs of this section could be merged.
- Done --haha169 (talk) 16:28, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The image captions in this section are better, use them to get an idea of what the earlier images could benefit from.
- The ones in "Rescue Efforts?" Thanks! I wrote them myself. I've fixed the other ones.--haha169 (talk) 16:07, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Wikilink May 19 2008 in the image caption of "reactions within China"
- Done--haha169 (talk) 16:07, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"signs and predictions" could all be merged into one paragraph
- Done--haha169 (talk) 16:07, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
wikilink US Geological Survey if you haven't already. (I may have missed an earlier wikilink"
- Yep. Its wikilinked already directly under the "Tectonics" section. --haha169 (talk) 16:07, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
References -> Notes or Footnotes (just a suggestion, it's what I always like to see personally)
A very comprehensive External links section, good job.
- Thank you! :) I made them using a format from the Indian/Sri Lanka tsunami that happened back then...

All in all, a very good article. The criticism sections which deal with the reaction from China seem sourced well, though I can't speak the language, it seems a reputable source. Grammar errors are few and far between. All the technical basics are done very well. Hope my ideas help. SGGH ^speak! 08:45, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot for you peer review! It was very helpful, and the article is now one step closer to GAN. --haha169 (talk) 16:30, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Very Initial Comments from Meldshal42

Japanese seismologist Yuji Yagi said that the earthquake occurred in two stages: "The 155-mile Longmenshan Fault tore in two sections, the first one ripping about seven yards, followed by a second one that sheared four yards."
- This is kind of exaggerating, isn't it? Or did the fault actually rip?
  - Earthquake faults do rip, yes. That's the term for when faults "rip", or break.--haha169 (talk) 18:08, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Yes, I was thinking break for a better wording, but rip works too. --Meldshal (talk to me) 13:58, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In section:Extent of tremors
- It is written in almost every little part in this section that "after the quake" ...

-Is this after the main shock ended, or after the main shock started?

- What do shocks have to do with the main quake?--haha169 (talk) 18:08, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - It makes a difference, so you should really figure this out. --Meldshal (talk to me) 13:58, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sadly, nine-year-old Mao Mao, a mother of five at the breeding centre, was discovered on Monday, her body crushed by a wall in her enclosure.
- Can you replace Monday with the proper date, whatever it is?
  - I saw something else as well, British-English in an American-English article. And yes, I'll try and find the date. Thank you! --haha169 (talk) 18:08, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The article is very good. It's just a bit hard to read with all the citations and hubba jubba. Hard work has been evident. --Meldshal42 (talk) 22:18, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Initial comment by Hemlock Martinis

First thing off the bat is the lead. While it does an excellent job in breaking down the scientific aspect of the earthquake, it does not provide a similar level of detail to the other aspects of the disaster. The lead exemplifies this. I would suggest rewriting the lead to be a more appropriate summary. The scientific data could be moved to a separate subsection, likely under the "Earthquake details" section. The new lead should then be painted in broad strokes and not get bogged down in minutae. Try this: three paragraphs, with the first paragraph about the scientific details (magnitude, epicenter, area of impact, etc.), the second paragraph about the immediate impact (casualties, damage, the schools and the quake lakes), and the third paragraph about the long-term impact (how the Chinese govt. responded, how the international community responded, what impact this had on the Olympics and other big events, etc.). --Hemlock Martinis (talk) 19:26, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Great idea for the lead! Thanks a bunch. I'll work on that when I'm done with my FAC. --haha169 (talk) 15:30, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]