Wikipedia:Article assessment/Natural disasters/Nisqually 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: Nisqually 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

The external link contains a wealth of information that shows how little this article covers; there are no references

• Writing style: 8
• Structure: N/A

The article is too short to rate the structure

• Aesthetics: N/A

The article is too short to rate the aesthetics

• Overall: 4

Little more than a stub. violet/riga (t) 21:22, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Review by MacGyverMagic

• Coverage and factuality: 2

No inline citations, but all info is probably covered by external link. Just a few paragraphs. No doubt has major omissions. (Doesn't mention where the quake's name comes from).

• Writing style: 3

Spelling and grammar are fine, but Seattle should've been mentioned sooner. Doesn't explain the word subduction. Barely keeps interest.

• Structure: 1

No lead, images, templates or tables. Gets 1 point for being linked to.

• Aesthetics: 1

Is essentially a stub and looks the part.

• Overall: 2

Needs massive expansion. - Mgm|^(talk) 21:43, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Review by [name]

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