User talk:Kdowde3/sandbox

=Feedback= I think there needs to be more information in the background section. Go more in depth on the history of the area. What was the last major earthquake there? what exactly is an under-thrusting earthquake (could do an in-line link)? You did give specific numbers about how many homes were destroyed, but what about costs of damage, wave heights, aftermath and recovery? Also include more aspects of the human element. Are humans good (or getting better) at detecting earthquakes and warning people? Why do we build on/near fault lines? No grammar mistakes I could see except for a missed comma in the last sentence of the Background section. Your writing is very factual with no bias, and your references are well done. HandN6043S (talk) 06:30, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Feedback from jonathanhoffmann225
I agree with HandN6043s with everything he said. I think your information in the two sections are very closely related to the point that they should almost not be included in two different sections. If you add more historical information to the background section you will be able to have two separate sections. I think you should play around with wording in some spots. Try reading your work out loud to yourself to see if some areas should be rewritten. Also, the way you quoted information from a reference is absolutely correct in terms of a research paper but I do not know if it is appropriate for Wikipedia. I can't provide an answer on that, but definitely ask Dr. Carmichael about that. I will try to ask in class.

One question I think you need to answer more explicitly is why is the area used to high frequency, low to moderate severity earthquakes?

Otherwise, very good job on the objective writing style. Super job on that part! Jonathanhoffmann225 (talk) 17:01, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

B.J.Carmichael Feedback
Your peers have provided good feedback. While you have good facts, the lack of peer-reviewed scientific sources and organization impair the overall flow and clarity of your article. Review each section carefully for idea placement, word choice, grammar, and spacing issues. Be as specific as possible. The titles could also be more informative so that readers can locate the information they seek. Explanation of processes are strong, but review Quotations for guidelines. Writing style is objective and neutral. Continue to develop the sections and support facts with appropriate sources. B.J.Carmichael (talk) 18:31, 5 November 2013 (UTC)