User:Bcmcelwee03/1999 İzmit earthquake/Geol200 NB Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

Bcmcelwee03


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * User:Bcmcelwee03/1999 İzmit earthquake
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * 1999 İzmit earthquake

Evaluate the drafted changes
Lead

- The lead has great introduction. The article evaluation provided a detailed synopsis of the key details illustrated in the article. There are many much needed criticisms that are signified in your evaluation revolving around relevant information that needs to be addressed in the article.

- Specifically pinpointing out that there should be more images and the sources needs to be more credible demonstrate that there is a clear sense of misinformation that you are set to fix.

- Very concise as well, only thing I would add on is to add more information besides revolving mainly one one or two areas that will be changed.

Content

- Very detailed organization of key points that will be added to the article. Each section is divided into categories which allows the reader to understand what the specific contributions are.

- Each information pertaining to a particular category is relative short which is great again for understanding but perhaps needs a more thorough detail as to what exactly each category adds on to the information already provided.

- But, the contribution does in fact illustrate topics that are missing and not represented in the article that is indeed resourceful information that supports the article.

Tone And Balance

- There seems to be no bias in relation to their content added, Only information that is general details needed to be added to stated. I have no complaints.

Sources And References

- This is the area I believe needs most work, The information you are adding on is great but the sources and references are lacking and are of very few. There are only two sources listed in the references section that will be utilized for your contribution.

- The sources are however credible sources and are backed up from a reliable secondary source of information and they are indeed current and thorough. But, there isn't a diverse spectrum of authors listed since there are only two articles, thus only two authors.

- There are many other articles that are just as credible and will serve as a great backbone to build the foundation of your contribution when adding to the article. Organization / Images & Media

Organization / Images & Media

- The organization, as stated previously, is very clear and understandable for the reader. Additionally, you enlisted that you plan to add on images which will serve a great role in providing the user with a sense of imagery to better comprehend the information being provided.

Overall Thoughts:

- The article evaluation and draft provide great overview of the information listed in the article and the information that is planned to be added.

- My only takeaway is that there should be supporting evidence and examples for each category in your draft along with more sources so that there is more credible info to draw on and illustrate a more well-rounded contribution. Great work overall.