Talk:June 2011 Christchurch earthquake/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: ♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:42, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

I will begin review on 24th Aug. Promise!♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:07, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Lead

• "It was centred at a depth of 6.0 km (4 mi), about 13 km (8 mi) from Christchurch, which had previously been devastated by a February 2011 magnitude 6.3 ML aftershock of the major 2010 Canterbury earthquake. " An aftershock months after the 2010 earthquake? Does that qualifiy as an aftershock or separate event?

I've added a ref for Feb being regarded as an aftershock. The main article on the Feb quake explains this in more detail; geologically it was an aftershock, but for insurance purposes it was considered a new earthquake.-gadfium 09:37, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Background

• "The largest on record was a magnitude 8.2 ML major earthquake that occurred on 23 January 1855 near the Wairarapa plains of the North Island." Citation needed.

I've added a ref.-gadfium 09:37, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

• "The magnitude 7.1 Mw event of 4 September 2010 was by far the strongest earthquake recorded in the Canterbury Region of the island." Citation needed.

Damage evaluation

• "A three-month reconstruction project was set to be initiated in October 2011" Is rather than was?
  • Not too sure. How about "was scheduled to begin in October 2011"? ★ Auree _talk 04:06, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
• "Lyttelton Port, a major harbour in the region, suffered additional damage from the tremors and was to perform full engineering assessments" "was to perform full engineering assessments" is a little awkward. Maybe is due to undergo full engineering assessments or underwent full engineering assessments. Perform is not the right word I think.
  • Changed to "opted to initiate full engineering assessments" ★ Auree _talk 04:06, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Relief efforts

• NZ$285,000 and the two Australian dollar figures need US dollar conversions like above.
  • Done. Sorry about the delayed replies and thanks for reviewing! ★ Auree _talk 04:06, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   B. MoS compliance:

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. References to sources:

   B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   B. Focused:

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

   B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

I think this just about meets requirements. In my opinion the prose needs a lot of work but is sufficient for now. I'd imagine as time goes on more information in books and such will become available.♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:07, 27 August 2011 (UTC)