User:Gailelliott/1999 Hector Mine earthquake/Alex.Parker200 Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

1999 Hector Mine earthquake group


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * 


 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * 1999 Hector Mine earthquake

Evaluate the drafted changes
There article evaluation section is thorough and breaks down the various problems with the original article. The grammatical problems and poor sentence structure make the article hard to read and both need to be addressed. The problem of insufficient as well as outdated links is also important and will need to be solved by the group.

The article draft is well-written albeit brief. There is a large amount of citations which is good as the original lacked quality references. Some more space could be written on foreshocks and whether it was clear to the relevant authorities that a magnitude 7+ earthquake was about to occur. The draft is neutral in tone and sticks to the facts as relayed by the sources cited. All the links work unlike the original article and they are relevant and factual to the article at hand.