User:Anongeologist/1958 Lituya Bay earthquake and megatsunami/Alee0046 Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

Anongeologist, Teddykoronios1234, Zoeroros, Amoreland22, 2003la


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Anongeologist/1958_Lituya_Bay_earthquake_and_megatsunami?preload=Template%3ADashboard.wikiedu.org_draft_template
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * 1958 Lituya Bay earthquake and megatsunami

Evaluate the drafted changes
(Compose a detailed peer review here, considering each of the key aspects listed above if it is relevant. Consider the guiding questions, and check out the examples of what feedback looks like.)

The lead section of the article does a great job at introducing the topic of the 1958 Lituya Bay earthquake. However, not all the of the major subsections are mentioned in this section. Giving a brief overview or even mentioning all the additional subsection will make the article more organized and will allow the audience to understand what information is provided in the article. All the additional content being added to the article will definitely benefit the article. The picture showing the size of the tsunami compared to buildings helps the audience understand how enormous the tsunami actually was. Providing a brief explanation of each mechanism will help the audience better understand how the earthquake came to be. Their is no bias in any of the added content. There is an "eyewitness" section, but that helps the audience better understand the severity of the earthquake and the tsunami caused by it. All the information is cited by a source. Also, the sources definitely provide great information that can be added on to the article. The added information is clear and concise, but where specifically will each section be placed in the article. I would suggest adding the tectonic history section after the earthquake section to explain the reasoning behind the earthquake. Also, I would add the analysis of different sources of mechanism after the rockfall section to allow for a good flow of information. The images in the article are all captioned well and the image being added will allow the audience to gain a perspective of how severe the tsunami was. The content added overall improved the quality of the article. However, some concepts should be explained more, such as the analysis of different sources of mechanism section.