User:Logangarvin/Hōei eruption/Teddykoronios1234 Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

Hoei Eruption


 * 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)
 * Hōei eruption

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.)

The article that i looked at for the Hoei eruption was good. I think you touched a lot of good points in the evaluation including how you described the article tones saying that the tone was very abrupt. I think in the evaluation you should show and talk more about the facts in the article you read. I thought it was very cool that you brought up the starvation following the eruption and how the ash that fell lead to people becoming starved in the Edo area. I like how you also added the intensity of the eruption saying that the explosion caused heavy damage to nearby cities, including the destruction of 3 Temples and 72 houses in Subassiri town. Citations were good in the end of your article also i like how you added at the end of your wiki that there will be more threats of eruptions in the future. This was an overall good wiki page but it wouldn't hurt to add more facts about the Hoei Eruption.

Peer Review Review
Although your review seems a bit offhanded, I think what you mentioned about including more information regarding the Hoei Eruption is very important for an article on the Hoei Eruption. I'm not sure what we were thinking when we didn't add enough information on the Hoei Eruption on our article on the Hoei Eruption, truly a great oversight that we will look into immediately. We plan on adding information regarding the geological process of the eruption itself, alongside a general overview of Mt. Fuji's volcanic activity and how it related to the eruption as a separate section of the page. I have to ask, though, what you mean by "I think in the evaluation you should show and talk more about the facts in the article you read," as It simply does not make sense to me. We have read through numerous sources to gather our information and put it out plain and simple to read and dissect, and have not omitted or decided against putting information into our draft and article. Please do not give us that malarkey.