Wikipedia:Article assessment/Natural disasters/Cretaceous–Tertiary extinction event

This article will address the topic of Wikipedia:Article assessment/Natural disasters/Cretaceous–Tertiary extinction event, which has sparked great interest and debate in various areas. Wikipedia:Article assessment/Natural disasters/Cretaceous–Tertiary extinction event is a relevant topic that has captured the attention of specialists, academics, professionals and the general public, due to its importance and relevance today. Throughout this article, different aspects of Wikipedia:Article assessment/Natural disasters/Cretaceous–Tertiary extinction event will be analyzed, such as its origins, impact, implications and possible future developments. Likewise, the opinions of experts in the field will be discussed, as well as relevant experiences and cases related to Wikipedia:Article assessment/Natural disasters/Cretaceous–Tertiary extinction event. Finally, reflections and conclusions will be proposed that invite reflection and debate on this significant topic.
Assessment Article 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 Good article
2005 Atlantic hurricane season Good article
2005 Kashmir earthquake
2005 Miyagi earthquake Poor article
Antonine Plague
Avalanche
Black Death Good article
Cascadia Earthquake
Cretaceous-Tertiary extinction event
Emergency preparedness Poor article
Good Friday Earthquake
Hurricane Andrew
Hurricane Floyd Good article
Hurricane Hugo
Hurricane Iniki Good article
Hurricane Katrina
Hurricane Nora (1997)
Hurricane Pauline
Johnstown Flood
Krakatoa
Mount Vesuvius
Napier earthquake
Nisqually earthquake Poor article
Permian-Triassic extinction event
Shaanxi Earthquake
Supernova
Supervolcano
Tornado
Tunguska event

Assessment of an article under the topic Natural disasters.


Article: Cretaceous-Tertiary extinction event

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: 7
Appears to cover the major things, though it desperately needs inline citations
  • Writing style: 9
  • Structure: 9
  • Aesthetics: 8
  • Overall: 8

A good article on its way to becoming featured. violet/riga (t) 15:40, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Review by

">edit]
  • Coverage and factuality:
  • Writing style:
  • Structure:
  • Aesthetics:
  • Overall: