User:Huzmir1014/2016 Fukushima earthquake/Tjordan15 Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

Huzmir1024, Jfmaloney, Kevinhwang1, Olarios204


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Huzmir1014/2016_Fukushima_earthquake?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
(Compose a detailed peer review here, considering each of the key aspects listed above if it is relevant. Consider the guiding questions, and check out the examples of what feedback looks like.)

Overall, I think the changes the group plans to make to article are beneficial. I see some of them have already posted. In my opinion the section that needs the most editing is the Lead. The opening sentence details what the article will be about so it is good as is. The lead is almost overly detailed and not concise. It includes a lot of information that could be added to other sections to improve their quality. For example, the information about how it was first graded as a 7.3, then 7.4, and finally a 6.9. I think this information is good and relevant to the topic but should be listed under the earthquake section or be made into its own if enough information could be found about it. The second paragraph in the lead could be put else where, it is almost like I am reading the entire article and getting all the info I need in the lead section.

The info the group plans to add and what is already in the article is relevant and I don't recommend taking anything out. I see that you all plan to go more in depth about the tsunami that occurred afterward which I think is a good idea because it is a major event in the timeline if not what makes this earthquake so significant. If possible, it would be good to include info/ accounts/ viewpoints from some of the people who experienced the event. I think adding stuff from the did you feel it data as planned would be good too. From what I read, I did not notice any spelling or grammatical errors that needed to fixed. the content is easy to read/understand. The tone is not biased or persuasive.

i would recommend adding more images, possibly of the damage and any flooding from the tsunami. the two pictures that are on the page are not cited or captioned. I would suggest finding where they came from and captioning the random maps. The ratio of info to sources is heavy on the sources without a lot of info. I see there are plans to possibly add a subsection of damage to the impact section. I would either make it its own section or make impact a subsection to damage. Also if you could find info on it, I would add damage repair costs and how it affected the GDP of Japan or the area. Lastly, i would try to go more in depth into the earthquake itself, what kind it was, strike, dip slip etc, if it was due to the subduction zone and if it occurred on a known fault.