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

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

Group members: Anongeologist, Teddykoronios1234, Zoeroros, Amoreland22, 2003la


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * User:Anongeologist/1958 Lituya Bay earthquake and megatsunami


 * 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.)

I see that you guys want to add a picture that shows the relative height of the mega-tsunami but I don't think you can add that specific picture because Wikipedia is pretty strict about what pictures you can use. If you can, I would try to find a picture of the tsunami in Wikipedia's image library instead. It seems that the article does talk a little bit about the tectonic setting but you definitely could go more in-depth with it using the source that you listed. There doesn't seem to be much information about damages in the article so you could add more to that but you'll need more information than just what's in your draft. I see you're using the same source for "analysis of different source mechanisms" as you are for tectonic history, and it does seem to be a good source, but maybe you should try incorporating information from a different source as well. The last source that is used in the article seems to be pretty good as well because it's coming from the USGS and I think it would be a good idea to add another eyewitness account. I also think you all should make a section for the tsunami that the earthquake generated because it seems to be a pretty significant event yet the article doesn't seem to give much detail about it. Overall, I think it's gonna be a little hard for you all to add a significant amount to this article because it is already so long and has a lot of sources attached to it, but I think if you find maybe one or two more good sources like the one you have for tectonic history than you'll be fine.

Peer Review Response
I hadn't realized the picture we want to add would likely go against Wikipedia's strict image guidelines, we'll have to double check on whether that can be included at all. Thank you for the idea of trying to find a picture of the tsunami in Wikipedia's image library instead, that's definitely worth a try. The suggestion of adding a section or just some more information on damages is a great idea, I was considering adding that to our draft but hesitated because I had no sources lined up. Looking over the article again, I feel that would be necessary. We are planning to find more sources so we aren't limiting different sections to the same one and have more support for the information. So thank you for that reminder, and giving helpful feedback on the quality of the sources we do have. I'm glad to see you think adding a second eyewitness account is a good idea because I'm the one who found the source that would allow us to do so and was not entirely sure how necessary it was at first. The suggestion of adding a section for the tsunami is a great one. I hadn't even thought about how much more organized that would make the article and how much more detail on it is needed considering its significance. Your suggestions were very helpful! I really appreciate them and will make my other group members aware of the ideas. - Andrea