User:Emilyhg.371/2019 Visayas earthquake/Gailelliott Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

Emilyhg.371


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * User:Emilyhg.371/2019 Visayas earthquake


 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * 2019 Eastern Samar earthquake

Evaluate the drafted changes
This current article that this group is editing is lacking in almost every way so it is a wise decision to be editing this one. I absolutely agree with adding more sections because as of right now, the article is two paragraphs which is not good. I am a big fan of the geography section as it gives some background information on the area as a whole which is a really nice touch. Something you could add to this article could be talking about what kind of plate boundary this earthquake could be linked to in order to give a more detailed description of the actual earthquake in later sections. Make sure you watch letting your own voice sneak into your contribution by adding unnecessary adjectives like in the phrase, "...Visayas sea provides excellent fishing opportunities...". In this case, I think the word excellent should be taken out or replaced with another word. i do not think there should be a first hand account section should be its own section, but it could be added and incorporated into a section talking about the earthquake itself or its damage. Also, im not a super big fan of super long quotes so you might want to find a way to incorporate shorter versions of the quotes. Your damage section is great and you should definitely add more onto it if you can. Overall, you guys are doing a really great job and only need fine tuning. Please look back on making sure you keep a neutral tone when writing for this project/article. Also, make sure to tie the aritcle together a bot more. Elaboration on current ideas already in the article might be a really great idea. Also, add to the sections you currently have and possible add more such as an actual lead paragraph or have an aftershocks section if there were any of those.

Darshil's Response
Thank you for your feedback. I actually thought it was a very good peer review. I agree that we could go for a more neutral tone in certain places of the draft and cut out the long quotes. I believe that long quotes also aren't really allowed on Wikipedia so I'll talk to my group about that. We do plan to reformat the lead section because currently, it's pretty bad. I don't think we will add an aftershocks section because that information will probably be in another section. I also think that incorporating the information in the first-hand account section into other sections may be more useful.