Jump to content

Talk:1927 Lompoc earthquake

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:1927 Lompoc earthquake/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: Dora the Axe-plorer (talk · contribs) 06:27, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: Dawnseeker2000 (talk · contribs) 04:24, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]


I'll take this one. Dawnseeker2000 04:24, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable, as shown by a source spot-check.
    a (reference section): b (inline citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
    This is pretty good coverage for a 98-year-old event
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:
  6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:

Comments

[edit]

After having read the article and working on a few sentences that weren't totally clear to me, I think this easily meets the limited criteria for a good article. Nice work, Dawnseeker2000 05:28, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for reviewing and fixing some of the language. Cheers Dora the Axe-plorer (explore) 05:49, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]