Wikipedia:Article assessment/Natural disasters/Emergency preparedness

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: Emergency preparedness

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.

  • Coverage and factuality: 5
No references at all
  • Writing style: 5
Far too many one or two sentence paragraphs
  • Structure: 5
Not a particularly obvious section order
  • Aesthetics: 4
My first impression of the article is that it's a little dull, and some images would be very nice
  • Overall: 4
Sorry but it is not a very appealing article, and needs a good cleanup. Looking at the history there have been very few recent edits, which may be both a symptom and a cause of this. violet/riga (t) 15:47, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Review by DMurphy edit

  • Coverage and factuality: 5

No sources.

  • Writing style: 4

Reads like a government policy rough draft... needs to be rewritten to be more encyclopaedic.

  • Structure: 6

Could use some re-working.

  • Aesthetics: 2

No pictures or diagrams makes a very boring article indeed.

  • Overall: 4
I have to agree with violet/riga, this article is dry and very unencyclopaedic. The title itself seems like it needs a change to something more informative and less vague (ie Emergency preparation techniques). -DMurphy 21:29, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Review by [name] edit

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