As noted in one of the sources, two different organizations have reported different magnitudes for the quake: Phivolcs reported 5.5, USGS reported 5.8. Therefore, at minimum, when reporting it as 5.5 we should attribute that; and it would be better to report both numbers (this doesn't often happen, but we do occasionally have disagreements between official bodies about the magnitude of an earthquake). In doing this, of course one doesn't want to clutter up the start of the first sentence of the article with a lot of words about different organizations before getting to the key facts of the event. One way to handle this (but this is just a suggestion) would be to not mention the magnitude in that first sentence, and then add a second sentence to the lede explaining that these two different institutions reported different magnitudes. It's probably a good idea to check whether there's been any official change on this (sometimes one or another institution will later change what they say about the magnitude).
I don't understand what the second paragraph is saying. Pimentel didn't say those things in a picture, did he? I'm also not sure what the phrase "most affected area" is doing there: is the picture of the most affected area of Surigao del Sur, or is the picture of Surigao del Sur, which is the most affected area? I'm willing to help with flaws in English usage, but in this case I wasn't sure what was intended.
In the last paragraph, the opening phrase seems to have got a bit garbled. I see from the source, the quake in April was the most recent one in the Philippines that killed someone. You want to say that, clearly, and use different phrasing than the source did.
In editing the article during review, I made small edits to try to make clear just what I was doing, and why; see the detailed revision history (as usual). If any of it isn't clear, ask and I'll try to explain further.
There may, of course, be other difficulties I haven't picked up on yet. I'm optimistic about this article, though. It looks fixable to me; and since the event took place on either Saturday or Friday (depending on how generously a reviewer interprets it), we have at least another day or so to get it revised and re-reviewed.
If possible, please address the above issues then resubmit the article for another review (by replacing {{tasks}} in the article with {{review}}). This talk page will be updated with subsequent reviews.
As noted in one of the sources, two different organizations have reported different magnitudes for the quake: Phivolcs reported 5.5, USGS reported 5.8. Therefore, at minimum, when reporting it as 5.5 we should attribute that; and it would be better to report both numbers (this doesn't often happen, but we do occasionally have disagreements between official bodies about the magnitude of an earthquake). In doing this, of course one doesn't want to clutter up the start of the first sentence of the article with a lot of words about different organizations before getting to the key facts of the event. One way to handle this (but this is just a suggestion) would be to not mention the magnitude in that first sentence, and then add a second sentence to the lede explaining that these two different institutions reported different magnitudes. It's probably a good idea to check whether there's been any official change on this (sometimes one or another institution will later change what they say about the magnitude).
I don't understand what the second paragraph is saying. Pimentel didn't say those things in a picture, did he? I'm also not sure what the phrase "most affected area" is doing there: is the picture of the most affected area of Surigao del Sur, or is the picture of Surigao del Sur, which is the most affected area? I'm willing to help with flaws in English usage, but in this case I wasn't sure what was intended.
In the last paragraph, the opening phrase seems to have got a bit garbled. I see from the source, the quake in April was the most recent one in the Philippines that killed someone. You want to say that, clearly, and use different phrasing than the source did.
In editing the article during review, I made small edits to try to make clear just what I was doing, and why; see the detailed revision history (as usual). If any of it isn't clear, ask and I'll try to explain further.
There may, of course, be other difficulties I haven't picked up on yet. I'm optimistic about this article, though. It looks fixable to me; and since the event took place on either Saturday or Friday (depending on how generously a reviewer interprets it), we have at least another day or so to get it revised and re-reviewed.
If possible, please address the above issues then resubmit the article for another review (by replacing {{tasks}} in the article with {{review}}). This talk page will be updated with subsequent reviews.
The reviewed revision should automatically have been edited by removing {{Review}} and adding {{Publish}} at the bottom, and the edit sighted; if this did not happen, it may be done manually by a reviewer.
The reviewed revision should automatically have been edited by removing {{Review}} and adding {{Publish}} at the bottom, and the edit sighted; if this did not happen, it may be done manually by a reviewer.
