User:Connorhs25/Hōei eruption/Chromium2451 Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

Connorhs25


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Connorhs25/H%C5%8Dei_eruption?veaction=edit&preload=Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org_draft_template


 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Hōei eruption

Evaluate the drafted changes
Lead

There is no lead written and therefore no critique can be written on it. However a the draft would benefit from one and there are plans to write it outlined so there is no issue there. The lead would do well to briefly introduce the extent of the eruption and the tectonic setting as well as the threat of more eruptions. This is likely what is going to be written but I still had to mention it as I feel the article would greatly benefit from a good lead section.

Content

I feel that the content added is extremely relevant to the topic as it describes the extent of the eruption and some ejecta released in the first section and then describes the tectonic setting leading into the reasons why the eruption happened before leading into the threat of more eruptions. All this was done with a high degree of clarity and something that particularly struck me was measurements in both imperial and metric when describing the ash released by the volcano. This struck me as the author showing a high degree of clarity as it these measurements could have been left as simply the stated system and measurement however readers from other places which use the other measurements may have been confused and as such i think this is a wonderful addition to the article that adds great international value. As for overall clarity there is an abundance of it as well due to the sentences simply stating what they need to in order to convey information and not adding more than is necessary. An example of this the sentence "landslides soon followed the eruption due to heavy rainfall and flooding in the area" which is extremely clear and understandable. The content within the article also appears up to date as there are sources listed from as recently as 2021. There is also no content that doesn't need to be here as all pertains specifically to the topic and to the subheadings. Regarding the structure of the article it appears to flow logically from one idea to the next and exhibits a very well thought out plan. one such case of this flow on display is in the second paragraph it ends with the statement "Hoei is is said to be the worst ash fall disaster in Japanese history" then the next sentence in the next paragraph describes precisely how much ash has fallen. So this shows excellent structure and flow. The only spelling mistake i have found was the "Philippine Sea plate" where one p is missing so that must be corrected. Another aspect that I think would greatly benefit the article is the inclusion of more pictures and diagrams especially when describing the tectonic setting and vents that were created due to the eruption. I feel like these photos would paint a more vibrant picture in the readers mind because it would give a scale and scope to the vents for instance as it can be visually seen how big they are for example where as it is now it is a bit ambiguous.

There also appears to be balanced coverage of the draft as it delves into various topics. The main headings are the extent of the eruption, the tectonic setting and the threat of more eruptions. These are varied from each other so they overall show a balanced coverage. In addition there is a lot of balanced coverage within these greater points where various ideas are stated. For example in one of the paragraphs in the extent of eruption section it describes how two types of magmas mixed due to a earthquake. One potential addition that i think the draft would benefit from to make it more balanced would be to list damages associated with past eruptions and discuss how those affected the people living there at the time. overall i think the coverage is very good for a first draft so there is not much else I can say. In addition to the balanced coverage there appears to be strong neutrality being exhibited by the author. This takes the form of simply stating information from a purely objective point of view. an example of this objective fact stating nature is "the eruption is rated 5 on the volcanic explosivity index". however some sentences can benefit from a bit more objectivity as there is one sentence where it states that the eruption was preceded by a "massive" magnitude 8.6 earthquake. I think that the sentence would be slightly more objective if the "massive" was removed and it simply stated it was preceded by a magnitude 8.6 earthquake.

The sources listed all appear to be from modern and peer reviewed reliable sources such as journals and papers. The content also accurately reflects the sources as each statement is backed up by a source immediately after it so there is also rigorous citation on display. One such example of this is the statement "it has been classified as an explosive eruption" and clicking on the paper cited it shows the same information by saying the 1707 Hoei eruption was explosive. Therefore accurate representation is displayed. In addition all the links and sources appear to work and take me to the correct papers.

Overall the article is an extremely strong one with rigorous citation, concise and objective language, and neutral view point discussed above. Other than a the addition of pictures and the inclusion of a lead there is not much that can be added that I believe would be of significant value to the article as discussed above.