User:Anongeologist/1958 Lituya Bay earthquake and megatsunami/Geol200 NB Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

Anongeologist


 * 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
Lead

- The article provides a detailed explanation of the topics discussed in the article. They illustrate key information that depict the entirety of the article while also included details about other factors such as images that demonstrate how the article has portrayed some of its information through other resources.

- The lead is for the most part is concise and conveys a general synopsis of the info to be provided in the article.

- But, the introduction can be more through in explaining the basis for the evaluation. Also, the lead does not reflect the new content added.

Content

- The content that to added, pictures and statistical facts such as magnitude and tectonic history, are excellent points to add to the article as the images can detail the tectonic history and other content that will be added. They work hand-in-hand in detailing and providing the reader with imagery

- Everything to be added seems up-to-date with today's current information which provided further reason as to add it to the article.

- Although the information to be added is really informative, there could be more done as there is only a few subjects touched that is set to be added. They work great but more sources or key details such as one or two subsections relating to relevant topic would work greatly.

Tone And Balance:

- There seems to be no bias from what I've seen and seems to take no side in choosing to display info on a particular area rather than the other. That's all good.

Sources And References:

- I believe this is the area that needs the most work. There seems to be really few sources pertaining to only one source per section in your contribution. There isn't much credible source either as these are not provided by a secondary source of information.

- The information does provide info on the sources provided though.

- But, the sources are not really thorough and provide much overview to add on to the article. They don't seem to be written by a diverse spectrum of authors either. There are plenty of more reliable sources out there that I'm sure you'll be able to find. I can't wait to seem too once you find them!

Organization / Images & Media

- The organization as stated earlier seems to be pretty concise and understandable for the reader to grasp. And there are also image that you plan to add to the article that will help build and support its information provided.

- The organization might be too concise however and a little more background or general info would definitely strengthen your contribution.

Overall Thoughts:

- Article Evaluation is great as it details information that is short and thorough. The Contribution Draft is very concise and provides key information that is surely lacking in the article as well.

- The only thing I would say is to add more info and provide better sources for each of the categories I commented on above. Once that is done I'm sure everything will be perfect. Hope this helped.