User:KRose4/Kīlauea Iki/Francesfact Peer Review

Peer Review Comments - Peer review response in bold


 * The intro is straight to the point and informative for basic information about the crater.
 * Did well showing the biggest known eruptions, and showed the importance.
 * The 15th Century eruption does seem a little bare and doesn't feel as balanced compared to the rest of the article, especially since the 1959 eruption has so much information. The weighting is just a little awkward.
 * I've had a lot of trouble finding information about that eruption and the 1868 eruption, while there is plenty of information about the 1959 eruption. That is why there is such an imbalance in the different sections and I don't think it is really possible to fix. However, I will continue to do research and see if I find any more information for that section, because that would be a good addition to the article.
 * It has a clear structure, as said previously, with an informative intro, writing about the main eruptions, and interesting information about the 1959 eruption.
 * Tourism seems a little off-topic. Most of the page seems to be about the actual geology and history, but tourism doesn't seem related. I think if there was one more topic that wasn't volcanology-related, then there might be less random to throw it in there.
 * Tourism was already in the article before I started editing it and I think it is a valid section as Kilauea Iki is one of the most popular trails in the Hawaii Volcanoes National Park and it is not uncommon to include this type of information in Wiki ariticles. I agree that other information not specifically geology related could be a good addition, but since that is not something I'm familiar with, I will leave that to someone else who is and I will only really focus on the geology aspects of Kilauea Iki.
 * There is no bias in the wikipedia article.
 * There are a good amount of sources leading to a balanced article in that sense.