User:Gailelliott/1999 Hector Mine earthquake/Kmcgowa2 Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

Gailelliot


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * User:Gailelliott/1999 Hector Mine earthquake


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

Evaluate the drafted changes
The foreshocks section has a good footing to start from. Possibly explain the significance of the Landers quake because right now it seems rather random as to why you are mentioning it. Possibly include the time the foreshocks concluded as well. The main earthquake section could use more of a discussion about the kind of earthquake it was as well as the geological setting that led to the quake. Again if you are going to mention another earthquake, give a sentence as to why you're mentioning it, why is it significant? The damage section seems fine generally, though the original article mentions the quake being felt in Vegas, so maybe include that information to extend this section slightly. For the aftermath section it seems as if it could use some more descriptive sentences to break up the just fact after fact feel it has right now. The references in the article so far are extensive and seem relevant. Overall this seems like a great start.

Response to peer Kmcgowa's Peer Review
Thank you for the evaluation of our article draft. I will make sure to add to the earthquake section to provide the all of the general informatoin about the earthquake including location, time, fel area, etc. I'll also make sure to explain why the other earthquakes are mentioned and the significance of them. We will add more depth to each section and fill the holes of our draft. Thank you for the deep evaluation!