This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I'm wondering wat stands between it and a possible GA. If a GA is out of the question (not so notable in terms of damage and loss of lives), could I get some pointers on pushing this to a B?
The entire sub-section seems too brief in content to glean any useful information. What was the last quake to have struck this area? What were its effects? Did it cause people to expect (and implement) certain measures against another quake?
Overall (not listing by specific location)
What makes EQECAT an authority on estimating economic losses?
Is a chronology of events needed (aside from being what I feel dull and not well organized), or would it be better to describe the events as a whole?
"It remains to be seen how the ..." is not particularly encyclopaedic.
Several paragraphs comprise one or two short sentences, making the article a bumpy read.
One [citation needed] seen, as well as a couple of unreferenced paragraphs.
That's the current sitrep. I don't know how I'll be able to get a valid source for this image that doesn't change, so I'll try and add a date.
Buggie111 (
talk)
01:06, 8 September 2010 (UTC)reply
What data or public domain source did the author create the map from?
Right now, I think the article could qualify for B with a little work (adding inline citations to sources, a little bit of reorganization), but attaining GA would require some more work in terms of resolving the above and improving the prose.
Jappalang (
talk)
08:25, 6 September 2010 (UTC)reply