User:Winter is coming567/Hōei eruption-PM/Apirah.n Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

User:Winter is coming567


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * User:Winter is coming567/Hōei eruption-PM
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Hōei eruption
 * Hōei eruption

Lead
The lead section is a great summarized version of the cause of the Hōei eruption. The introductory sentence is concise and gives readers a brief description into what the content will focus on. The existing article does not have a detailed section on the cause of the Hōei eruption, however, it is mentioned under the subsection "Tectonic setting and the threat of more eruptions" that the Hōei eruption was caused by a preceding earthquake of 8.6 magnitude. This is a bit different from your lead section which mentions two earthquakes of 8.2 and 8.7 magnitude. I would recommend double checking with the latest peer-reviewed journals to make sure you are correct and to avoid confusion among readers. I would also recommend specifying certain words in the lead section. For example, in the fourth sentence "The Genroku quake...however...did contribute to the latter", I would recommend explicitly stating what is meant by "latter", as this will give more clarity. Also the last sentence, where it says "it", I believe you are referring to the Hōei eruption, which would also be more clear if explicitly stated.

Content
The content added to the topic is relevant and related to what was mentioned in the lead section. It is summarized in a chronological order, starting with the effects of the Genroku earthquake and then moving onto the following Hōei earthquake. The author goes into detail about each quake and the mechanisms they caused into triggering the Hōei eruption. As a reader that knows nothing about earthquakes, the author does a great job of giving concise, visually-descriptive explanations about each mechanism. To further improve this section, I would recommend adding a citation to each sentence. So far, one sentence has been cited, and it is important for readers to know that all the information is coming from credible sources. It is also important that these sources are peer-reviewed and up-to-date. The current citation is from 2012 which may not reflect new information that could've been found in the last decade. Like mentioned in the lead section, the word "latter" can be replaced by explicitly stating what you are referring to. Finally, the last sentence can be removed or reworded. The author can add alternative hypotheses that have been discussed, which would help to expand a bit on their point that "one must keep in mind that there could be other important processes..."

Tone and Balance
The content added is neutral and sticks to scientific facts. There are no claims that are biased toward a particular position as this topic is purely based on scientific studies and evidence. The content added does not overrepresent or underrepresent any points, as the author gives excellent details about both earthquakes that triggered the Hōei eruption, ensuring a balance in the content. As mentioned previously however, the last sentence can be reworded or removed. Currently, the tone of the last sentence is a bit dismissive and abrupt, leaving the readers guessing about the alternative hypotheses. Some clarification and examples however, can give more clarity to this point.

Sources and References
As mentioned previously, this subsection can benefit from more peer-reviewed journals. The content accurately reflects what the scholarly source says, but is the only source being used. Using several different peer-reviewed sources (around five or six) is essential as it limits bias and guarantees that facts/evidence are being confirmed by multiple field experts as opposed to just one. Once again, it is important that these sources are as recent as possible and that every sentence is cited. This will ensure that the new information is accounted for and that any false information from previous studies can be refuted. This is particularly important for this article as it focuses on scientific evidence which has evolved significantly over the last decade, with many new discoveries taking place.

Organization
Overall, the lead and content sections are well-written. The sections are clear, concise and easy to understand even if you don't know about earthquake and explosions. The chronological order of events are explained excellently, and the breakdown of the content itself is also well-organized. There are no grammar errors, however, the last paragraph has a few spelling errors; "Genroku" is spelled as "Genruko".

Overall impressions
Overall, these additions are excellent. This subsection will significantly improve the overall quality of the article and make it more complete. The clear and concise writing is a major strength in this article, which I will carry over in my own article. Adding more recent citations and being more specific in some sections will further improve this article and take it to the next level.