User:John.heuver/1985 Algarrobo earthquake/Logangarvin Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

1985 Algarrobo Earthquake


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * User:John.heuver/1985 Algarrobo earthquake
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * 1985 Algarrobo earthquake

Evaluate the drafted changes
I think that the changes in the article draft has a good direction, but lacks the style that is most common in encyclopedias. It feels a lot more choppy and informal, closer to a nonfiction retelling of a story rather than the stating of facts. Despite this, the information give is relevant to the topic and works well. Much of the article lacks sources, with a chunks of text going without any sort of backup from external references. Alongside of this, each of the articles sources is written in spanish, and I personally cannot verify the source itself because of the language barrier. The draft, however, includes some good sources that support your claims reasonably, but be sure to note that you can use the same source twice in the article, not having to add a whole new reference for it. A few more images would be swell, and work well in the article, but each of them gives sufficient information regarding the scale and impact of the earthquake itself. I would like to ask whether the "1 billion dollars USD" accounts for inflation or was the $ amount of damage done back in '85. The work looks very nice though, keep up the good work.

John's response
Thanks for the feedback! I agree the style needs some work. in the drafting process we worked to get ideas down and obviously need to refine our delivery of them. The sources are certainly an issue; however, to my understanding much of the information is from the sources provided, just without the proper in text link. The couple sources we found are very in depth and useful. I also now spotted the mistake where we made the same reference twice, and will adjust accordingly. I will have to do some research into the 1 billion number, thats a good point. Again, Thanks!