User:Gailelliott/1999 Hector Mine earthquake/Smf7462 Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

Tjordan15, Andrewyi17, PG2025, Gailelliott


 * 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 article draft includes very little new information from the original article. It would be nice to see new sections added for example any information about the geological setting and the history of earthquakes in the area. The original article has very little information about the earthquake itself and you could add information about the tectonic activity that caused the earthquake. I understand that it occurred in a remote setting and that little damage occurred, but is there any monetary damage that was recorded, for example what it cost to repair the tracks, or the revenue lost from no trains running. Maybe include some information about the area now and if any seismic activity has been reported since. The lead section could be improved upon which is not included in the current draft. Other than the limited information in the article draft the sources are properly cited unlike the original article. The references used seem to be reliable and cited properly. The article draft is also impartial and shows no bias so far. The draft also uses much better grammar than the original article and is much easier to follow. The work done in the draft so far is very good, and if more information is added and cited like previously done this could be a fantastic article.

Tjordan15's (Tara) response to peer review
Thank you for your feedback! The things that you listed were not mentioned by other users so it is good to see something new. I particularly liked the example of adding something like what it would cost to repair the tracks that were damaged or how much revenue was lost due to the train tracks being out of service. We also plan to improve the lead section at some point, since we each worked on a section individually we have not gotten around to devising a plan for it. Also, I am glad that the grammar has seemed to improve, this was one of the bigger issues that we noticed within the article when we first picked it. We will definitely keep your suggestions in mind when we continue to edit our article. Thank you again!