User:Anongeologist/1958 Lituya Bay earthquake and megatsunami/Kratos11406 Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

Anongeologist


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * 1958 Lituya Bay earthquake and megatsunami and 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.)

To start of, this article is very well done and seems to be professionally done and has a lot of details in regards to the events of this natural disaster. From reading this article I can state that everything that I have read is relevant to the topic and has not distracted me from the work. The article is neutral in its presentation of facts as well as User:Anongeologist article evaluation coming across as neutral. Viewpoints that can be underrepresented is the section that talks about the earthquake, as it is only 2 to 3 sentences long while the section that talks about the rocks falling is overrepresented with two paragraphs dedicated to it. Upon clicking through the sources they all seem to be reliable and come from trusted sources, the article that User:Anongeologist links seems to be promising in turns of learning more about this event, https://www.tbsnews.net/environment/nature/tall-killer-wave-1958-lituya-bay-mega-tsunami-280834. In addition to having reliable sources these sources also seem to be unbias as they are only talking about in detail the events of a natural disaster and not having any altered motives. The information given throughout this article seems to be up to date and continues to be updated. Throughout Anongeologist evaluation and contribution there is a lot of work that is shown and it is very clean with the presentation of the sub sections such as the tectonic history, magnitude of damage, and the policy changes. They have it mapped out in a way that makes it easy and clean for them to be able to edit and provide extra information upon the article. From what I've seem, this looks like a very well done article and the contribution from this user is very evident and well done, things that can be added to this article can be more information on the earthquake and mega tsunami and more updated news on this event.