Talk:1930 Bago earthquake

This review is transcluded from Talk:1930 Bago earthquake/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: LunaEatsTuna (talk · contribs) 17:56, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Hey Dora the Axe-plorer, I've seen you around Wikipedia quite a lot! Anyways, before I conduct my review I wish to disclaim that my knowledge on earthquakes is elementary; nevertheless, I hope that I can still give a good review and learn some things! 𓃦LunaEatsTuna (💬) 17:56, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Okay, these should be all my concerns. Fantastic article! If the review seems on the shorter side this is because most fixes were minor and I could do them myself. Please ping me once you have addressed my concerns. I will put the article on hold for now but this should not take long. Also, no hard feelings if you wish to respectfully disagree with any of my points; we can probably work it out. Good luck, 𓃦LunaEatsTuna (💬) 18:34, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Hi @LunaEatsTuna, thanks for taking up the review. I've addressed the prose issues. "The presence of citations in the introduction is neither required in every article nor prohibited in any article" per MOS:LEADCITE but I've moved that into the body. Dora the Axe-plorer (explore) 23:05, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Thanks for the notice. 𓃦LunaEatsTuna (💬) 23:23, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Fantastic work! I am now pleased to pass this article for good article status per the changes. Congratulations Dora the Axe-plorer, and I wish you luck on your other active earthquake GANs. 𓃦LunaEatsTuna (💬) 23:23, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Good Article review progress box Criteria: 1a. prose () 1b. MoS () 2a. ref layout () 2b. cites WP:RS () 2c. no WP:OR () 2d. no WP:CV () 3a. broadness () 3b. focus () 4. neutral () 5. stable () 6a. free or tagged images () 6b. pics relevant () Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked are unassessed

Earwig says everything is good to go.

• File:The Shwemawdaw Pagoda (15354947282).jpg: good, CC-BY-SA 2.0;
• File:Shwedagon Pagoda 1900.JPG: good, valid public domain rationale;
• File:Yangon downtown at night.jpg: good, CC-BY-SA 4.0.

• Per WP:CITELEAD, the lead generally does not need citations unless content is controversial. Citations 2 and 3 are already cited later in the article; is it possible to use the first citation elsewhere in order to remove it from the lead?

• Some localities mentioned in Earthquake should be wikilinked, e.g. Tongyi appears to have an article at Tongyi, Mingin.

• "Widespread ground deformation was reported. Surface ruptures, fault scarps and fissures appeared." – might be personal taste but I reckon the full stop could be replaced with a semi-colon.

• "Several historically large and damaging earthquakes occurred on this fault." – does the source give any examples? If they have Wikipedia entries, this may be interesting to our readers.

• "for centuries but there is limited academic research to understand their" – unlink "academic research"; it is currently a redirect to research, a primary topic that seems unnecessary to link as most readers known what research is.

• "Shaking was violent enough to create large fissures, and thrusted alluvium was observed during surveys of the land." – wikilink alluvium.

• "The earthquake left a significant part of Bago in ruins" – does this sentence mean that an important area of Bago was ruined, or that a large part of Bago was ruined? If the latter, rephrase to "The earthquake left a significant portion of Bago in ruins" to avoid confusion.

All citations are usable (reliable) and formatted correctly.

Spot check on refs 4, 8, 10, 20, 21 and 26 show no concerns—they all support the article's content.

Good; portals relevant.

Recommend adding template:Use X English {{Use X English|date=January 2023}} (woah, '23!)

Infobox, short description, cats and navboxes all good; nice work!