Feedback from edeleo7

Your lead paragraph has a lot of information with only one reference. Could you put in an additional citation to make the information more reliable? Also, the lead paragraph mentions an intraslab earthquake without specifying what this means exactly. The infobox looks good, but you may want to break up causalities and injuries into two bits. I feel it would flow better to have the Geological origins section moved to be first for to make chronological sense and to rectify ambiguity when you discuss efforts made from previous earthquakes in your Damage and effects section. For the Effect of businesses, you may want to include an in-text citation closer to the very specific statistics that you are using. Also, the last few sentences in that section are rather awkward and cumbersome to read. The information is all there, but it could benefit from some reorganizing and clarity. The Geological origins section could use more explanation to describe why rock changing in form affects volume. This section also needs more in-text citations. The Response section could also use more specifics because it feels incredibly vague and non-specific. You also appear to be missing internal links, external links, and actual references at the bottom of your article. Overall, a very interesting earthquake!

Edeleo7 (talk) 12:22, 18 March 2014 (UTC)edeleo7[reply]

Feedback from Lindsay Gustafson

This article was really interesting and I really liked the pictures included in the article.

-Definitely make the reference section appear on your final edit. Also add external links to your page for further reading on the earthquake.

-I think that in the “Effect on businesses” section when you are talking about the statistics of the businesses, it’s a little confusing to me. I would maybe try to clarify the beginning of this section to make it easier for people to understand.

-I agree with Eileen that the structure of the last few sentences of the “Effect on businesses” section. I would just try to revise it and make it a little bit easier to read.

-The “Geological origins” section should definitely be moved to the beginning of the article to make more sense.

-Expand a little bit further into the "Response" section, too general with not enough information. Was there a specific plan or law they put into place?

Lindsaygustafson (talk) 16:19, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Review from Dr. Becky

You have good feedback from your peers and I agree with them. The article is interesting, but needs to be expanded, logically organized, and supported with peer-reviewed scientific references. The connection to ecology is weak and needs to be developed further. How did this earthquake affect the natural world? Have there been other earthquake to help with society'e preparations? Review the article for grammatical issues and awkward phrasing. This contribution has potential and I look forward to reading the next version. B.J.Carmichael (talk) 16:58, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

How improved

I had trouble with having my references show up at the bottom of the page and I have fixed this problem. I tried to clarify some points that my peers had confusion over. I have also added more information dealing with the natural area. Jason1035 (talk) 19:56, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]