Wikipedia:Article assessment/Natural disasters/Krakatoa

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: Krakatoa

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: 6

Covers things well but is not properly referenced

• Writing style: 9

Well written except for a few small areas

• Structure: 7

Tiny "Before 1883" section and oddly placed "Earlier eruptions" (merge the two?) - some reordering needed

• Aesthetics: 8

Some nice images and generally well done, but could do with at least one more image (an overhead map comparison?)

• Overall: 7

Badly needs references and could do with restructuring. violet/riga 23:24, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Review by MacGyverMagic

• Coverage and factuality: 8

Covers things nicely, but contains a contradiction as to whether the eruption was heard or felt in Australia (difference between lead and section of article). Has one listed ref at bottom, a few in text, needs more, but better than some.

• Writing style: 9

A few odd phrases (as far distant as), and a few jargon words not explained. Spelling, grammar okay. Keeps interest.

• Structure: 9

Proper table in well-sized lead. Good use of infobox, images and sectioning. Could do with slightly more images.

• Aesthetics: 9

Nice images and table style and generally attractive.

• Overall: 9

Good overal, but needs a copyedit and a fix of the references. - Mgm|^(talk) 23:07, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Review by [name]

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