There's only one source here that says the death toll is more than 27.
More recent reports put the death toll over a hundred; so, multiple sources are needed for something more recent than what is coroborated by the sources cited thus far.
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.
There's only one source here that says the death toll is more than 27.
More recent reports put the death toll over a hundred; so, multiple sources are needed for something more recent than what is coroborated by the sources cited thus far.
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.
The most important development in this story on Wednesday, afaics, is that the Turkish government ended its search for survivors. That's also important if one has chosen to make the death toll itself the focus, because it means this death toll is likely to be relatively stable hereafter. So its absence from the article is a problem; one I can't fix as adding information is not without an independent reviewer's purview.
It matters where information comes from; I've attributed the basic numbers in the lede, that being a straightforward measure for which there's lots of precedent for reviewers to step in and do it. (The fact that it's meta-information takes a little of the sting out of it. Far better such things get added by the reporter, of course.)
There's some tangling of figures specific to Turkey versus figures including Greece. Looks as if the 116 includes Greece while the 1035 doesn't; that ought to be untangled.
The later paragraphs here seem to include some outdated material that doesn't quite mesh with things said earlier.
The fourth paragraph says Turkish officials announced a considerably smaller number of deaths/injuries; when reporting the announcement of tolls like this, say when it happened; not only is that important to know as part of the overall timeline of events, but in this case it might also make it okay here to say they'd announced this even though earlier in the article we say that they announced some much larger numbers.
The fifth paragraph says there's some debate about the magnitude of the quake (though one wonders if "disagreement" would be a better word; I haven't studied the sources in-depth on this point). But, earlier in the article it's described as magnitude 7; perhaps the earlier mentions should be tweaked a bit?
Delays in reviewing this (I really wish we'd gotten to it yesterday) have left us with limited time in which to revise and review, unless there's some further development that could be used to further refresh it (though that's less likely because Turkey ended its search on Wednesday, as I mentioned earlier).
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.
The most important development in this story on Wednesday, afaics, is that the Turkish government ended its search for survivors. That's also important if one has chosen to make the death toll itself the focus, because it means this death toll is likely to be relatively stable hereafter. So its absence from the article is a problem; one I can't fix as adding information is not without an independent reviewer's purview.
It matters where information comes from; I've attributed the basic numbers in the lede, that being a straightforward measure for which there's lots of precedent for reviewers to step in and do it. (The fact that it's meta-information takes a little of the sting out of it. Far better such things get added by the reporter, of course.)
There's some tangling of figures specific to Turkey versus figures including Greece. Looks as if the 116 includes Greece while the 1035 doesn't; that ought to be untangled.
The later paragraphs here seem to include some outdated material that doesn't quite mesh with things said earlier.
The fourth paragraph says Turkish officials announced a considerably smaller number of deaths/injuries; when reporting the announcement of tolls like this, say when it happened; not only is that important to know as part of the overall timeline of events, but in this case it might also make it okay here to say they'd announced this even though earlier in the article we say that they announced some much larger numbers.
The fifth paragraph says there's some debate about the magnitude of the quake (though one wonders if "disagreement" would be a better word; I haven't studied the sources in-depth on this point). But, earlier in the article it's described as magnitude 7; perhaps the earlier mentions should be tweaked a bit?
Delays in reviewing this (I really wish we'd gotten to it yesterday) have left us with limited time in which to revise and review, unless there's some further development that could be used to further refresh it (though that's less likely because Turkey ended its search on Wednesday, as I mentioned earlier).
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.
We do prefer not to build exact death tolls of disasters into the headline, if we can avoid it, because they're apt to change while the article is still newly published and we don't like to rename articles after publication. --Pi zero (talk) 20:05, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
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.
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.
