User:Gailelliott/1999 Hector Mine earthquake/Katelyn Amoss Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

Gailelliott


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Gailelliott/1999_Hector_Mine_earthquake?veaction=edit&preload=Template%3ADashboard.wikiedu.org_draft_template


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

Evaluate the drafted changes
Lead

There is no draft for changes in the lead section, so here are some suggestions of what could be changes/included. I would remove the definition of lateral movements at the end of the paragraph. since it isn't needed to explain the summary of the earthquake. If you are going to keep it, I recommend adding whether the earthquake is left or right lateral to make it more relevant. You could also add it to the "Earthquake" section. I would also give the reader an idea of what the article includes since the current introduction doesn't include what will be presented in the rest of the article.

Content

I like your addition of the date and time of the foreshocks, it gives a more comprehendible timeline of this event. The last sentence of the "Earthquake" section would make more sense in the "Damage" section as it deals more with that topic. I'm not sure I agree with your decision to remove the felt area from your draft as it helps shows the magnitude of the earthquake. For the "Damage" section I would add more about what little damage occurred. The shaking was felt a distance away from the epicenter, so maybe try to find reports stating no damage in those areas as well. In the "Aftermath" section the decision to remove the sentence about the trigger years ago. The new changes relates much more to the section then in the first article.

Organization

Following the original organization of the article checks well.

Images/Media

There was no inclusion of images in your draft, but consider including a shake map. The one included in the original highlights the city the shaking was felt, but could be better.

Overall

The flow is pretty good and easy to follow. There are some changes made that really help advance the article, but others could still use some polishing and editing. I would say if you continue down this path and consider some of the edits the article will continue to improve the article.

PG2025 (Panav)'s response to peer review
Thanks, Katelyn, for this feedback. Reading over your feedback, it seems that you felt a lot was lacking from our draft. That is true and is because the draft is still in its early stages. As we continue to add to it, we will surely implement your suggestions such as including images and removing the last sentence of the Lead section. Thank you for your in-depth feedback!