User:Huzmir1014/2016 Fukushima earthquake/Alwyn2105 Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

Huzmir1014


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Logangarvin/H%C5%8Dei_eruption?veaction=edit&preload=Template%3ADashboard.wikiedu.org_draft_template
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * 2016 Fukushima earthquake

Evaluate the drafted changes
All of the links for this group's citations work properly. This group seems to fact check the article which is good, but I think they could have thought to add a little more to the impact section. In this earthquake, 230,000 people lost their homes Also, this type of earthquake was a strike-slip earthquake. This is important because in order for a more devastating tsunami to hit, you need vertical movement. Fortunately, for strike-slip earthquakes, the faults have a horizontal movement. I also have noticed that the structure of this article needs some editing. In the body of the article the author repeats a lot of the information that the reader sees in the introduction. I think it would be wise to remove some of that information in the introduction and shorten it. This article also lacks any pictures of the damage from the earthquake. The contributors should add some pictures that properly show the effects of the earthquake.

Response To Peer Review By Huzmir1014
We appreciate the suggestions offered up by Alwyn2105 and their team and have agreed that implementing more specific information into our article would be of major benefit. The reviewer added some ideas that we have taken to heart mainly an addition to the damages section of the earthquake as well as including more information about the specifics of the earthquake (e.g. the fact that the earthquake was a strike-slip, the relation of the later to the tsunami, etc.). Moreover, we have reviewed the structure of the article as well as edited the body of the original article that has points of repetition. This reviewer also provided sources for our article that we have used. This review was extremely helpful for our group and gave us more things to add on and work on as well as some edits and changes to already developed additions.