Talk:Seismic activity continues to shake Puerto Rico with 5.2 quake

Review of revision 4538968 [Not ready]

Revision 4538968 of this article has been reviewed by Pi zero (talk · contribs) and found not ready at 13:28, 9 January 2020 (UTC). Copyright: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Newsworthiness: Not ready: Argh; see below. Verifiability: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. NPOV: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Style: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Comments by reviewer: Although I approve of the strategy of keeping the article small-and-simple to minimize review labor, in this case during the review delay there have been additional developments such that if this were published now it would feel like "old news". I gather there was a large aftershock, and although I don't see any rise in death toll, there should be updates on damage and perhaps injuries. Questions about the above? Ask. If possible, please address the above issues then resubmit the article for another review (by replacing {{tasks}} in the article with {{review}}). This talk page will be updated with subsequent reviews.

Revision 4538968 of this article has been reviewed by Pi zero (talk · contribs) and found not ready at 13:28, 9 January 2020 (UTC). Copyright: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Newsworthiness: Not ready: Argh; see below. Verifiability: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. NPOV: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Style: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Comments by reviewer: Although I approve of the strategy of keeping the article small-and-simple to minimize review labor, in this case during the review delay there have been additional developments such that if this were published now it would feel like "old news". I gather there was a large aftershock, and although I don't see any rise in death toll, there should be updates on damage and perhaps injuries. Questions about the above? Ask. If possible, please address the above issues then resubmit the article for another review (by replacing {{tasks}} in the article with {{review}}). This talk page will be updated with subsequent reviews.

Delighted to say there is so far indeed no change in the direct death toll. Darkfrog24 (talk) 03:37, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

Review of revision 4539453 [Not ready]

Revision 4539453 of this article has been reviewed by Pi zero (talk · contribs) and found not ready at 17:01, 12 January 2020 (UTC). Copyright: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Newsworthiness: Not ready: See below. Verifiability: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. NPOV: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Style: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Comments by reviewer: Focus on aftershocks, while quite a reasonable strategy under the circumstances, is evidently vulnerable to loss of freshness due to further aftershocks. I gather there was a big one on Saturday. Questions about the above? Ask. If possible, please address the above issues then resubmit the article for another review (by replacing {{tasks}} in the article with {{review}}). This talk page will be updated with subsequent reviews.

Revision 4539453 of this article has been reviewed by Pi zero (talk · contribs) and found not ready at 17:01, 12 January 2020 (UTC). Copyright: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Newsworthiness: Not ready: See below. Verifiability: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. NPOV: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Style: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Comments by reviewer: Focus on aftershocks, while quite a reasonable strategy under the circumstances, is evidently vulnerable to loss of freshness due to further aftershocks. I gather there was a big one on Saturday. Questions about the above? Ask. If possible, please address the above issues then resubmit the article for another review (by replacing {{tasks}} in the article with {{review}}). This talk page will be updated with subsequent reviews.

Review of revision 4541404 [Passed]

Revision 4541404 of this article has been reviewed by Pi zero (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 02:18, 17 January 2020 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: The final sentence dealt with specific percentage probabilities without dating the forecast. I considered make the numbers vaguer to cover the range of updates in the source, which now continue up to the 15th; something like "They placed the possibility of another 6.4-range earthquake below one in four, and the likelihood of a more intense event below one in twenty"; but decided this introduced too much new information; it felt less like "fuzzing" the existing text than like replacing it. The reviewed revision should automatically have been edited by removing {{Review}} and adding {{Publish}} at the bottom, and the edit sighted; if this did not happen, it may be done manually by a reviewer.

Revision 4541404 of this article has been reviewed by Pi zero (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 02:18, 17 January 2020 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: The final sentence dealt with specific percentage probabilities without dating the forecast. I considered make the numbers vaguer to cover the range of updates in the source, which now continue up to the 15th; something like "They placed the possibility of another 6.4-range earthquake below one in four, and the likelihood of a more intense event below one in twenty"; but decided this introduced too much new information; it felt less like "fuzzing" the existing text than like replacing it. The reviewed revision should automatically have been edited by removing {{Review}} and adding {{Publish}} at the bottom, and the edit sighted; if this did not happen, it may be done manually by a reviewer.