User:Marysarkis/1933 Long Beach earthquake/Gailelliott Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

Marysarkis


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * User:Marysarkis/1933 Long Beach earthquake


 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * 1933 Long Beach earthquake

Evaluate the drafted changes
Going off of the original article evaluation, there seems to be conflict with what is considered "good" in the article and what is not. The first paragraph of the article evaluation describes the weaknesses of the lead section while the second paragraph does not give the section any criticism. These two paragraphs of the article evaluation seem contradictory in a sense so I would make sure there is a consensus about the article that you are editing about the content. I think adding to the section of causes is a smart idea because that section seemed to almost be out of place with not as much information as it should have. However, the information that is drafted should be worked into the existing information instead of adding the entire thing to that. The content that you have is really good but I feel like it is repeating some things in the main article and adding in new information. I would definitely try to converge the two to make that section stronger. Something you could add to your draft could be taking some things that are already currently in the lead section of the Long Beach Earthquake article and expanding on them. For example, you could expand in the damages or aftermath section on the cost of of damages and repairs of the earthquake as described in the lead section. Overall for this artlicle, I would try and just get into more specifics that the current article does not have. While I agree with you that there are some really great parts that already exist in this article, it doesn't hurt to expand on things. For example, you could look for eyewitness accounts from back in the day and include them where you see fit. This would also show the realness of the event and give the article more depth.

Michael's Reply
I agree that we need to strengthen the first paragraph of the article, which will probably be our first focus. Our other and main focus is adding to the causes section. That is what our group pretty much decided on. We have been working on drafting information for the section in our own sandboxes and are going to add that to Mary's sandbox soon. We are definitely going to try and stay away from repeating any information that is already in the article. I think we are going to take your advice and continue to add onto sections of the original article that aren't very strong and implement the research we have found relating to the Long Beach Earthquake.