User:Mcoope17/1138 Aleppo earthquake/Jfmaloney Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

(provide username)

1138 Aleppo Earthquake work by Alex.Parker200, Bullpenboys19, Nwalls3528 and Mcoope17


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Mcoope17/1138_Aleppo_earthquake?veaction=edit&preload=Template%3ADashboard.wikiedu.org_draft_template


 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * 1138 Aleppo 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.)

I think it was very relevant and important to include a section about the economic and political effects of the earthquake, since it wasn't already a distinct section in the article. That being said, in order for it to be its own section entirely, I think that there needs to be some more information included. For example, the edits say "the cost of reconstruction was high", is it possible to find an estimate of how much the reconstruction would have been? Also, include what type of systems were implemented for administrating buildings. Just in general be more specific in this area and include examples because it makes it easier to grasp if it is less of an abstract concept for the reader. In the actual unedited article, the beginning says that the Aleppo earthquake had its most casualties in Aleppo. However, later in the article it is mentioned that the "worst hit area" was Harem. It is important to describe what it means by "most hit", clarifying what is meant (which I assume means most damage to buildings and the area, not necessarily casualties).

Alex's Response
Agreed more detail is needed in the political and economic effects of the earthquake and that is one of the things planned in our future drafts. We could not find a clear number on the monetary cost of the destruction due to the lack of good contemporary record keeping for such events. A similar problem is present in the death tolls. The sources we have are poor at best for the reported death tolls and they might not be referring to the actual earthquake but the problem becomes what do we replace these numbers with if we decide they are not accurate enough. That is why we are trying to make clear the lack of good record keeping in the time period, or at least the lack of records available to modern geologists and historians, because otherwise readers might question why many of the facts stated in the article are so unclear. On the idea of "most hit", there are better ways to describe the idea of "most hit" and we will use those types of terminology going forward. Thank you for your review.