Wikipedia:Peer review/2006 Atlantic hurricane season/archive1
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I rewrote this a while ago, and after a successful GA review I would like to know what needs to be done to the article before an FAC run.
Thanks, Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 00:31, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
Comments from User:GeeJo
[edit]Ah, another good offering from the hard-working Hurricane folks. Alrighty, getting started:
- Lead: "2 indirect deaths" and "7 people" but "Four more hurricanes" - be consistent with spelling out numbers.
- Seasonal forecasts: Looking through the previous promoted articles in the Atlantic series, the only other one to include a preface to the subsections was the 2005 Atlantic hurricane season, which in addition included a summary of the number of forecasts released by each party. I don't really have an opinion one way or the other on whether such a summary would improve the article, I just thought I'd mention it as a possible expansion.
- Storms: Your timeline is linking to (nonexistent) headings in the 2006 Atlantic hurricane season article for Helene and Isaac. I presume the correct link would be to List of storms in the 2006 Atlantic hurricane season?
- Storms: States only need to be linked the first time.
- June and July: 70 mph (110 km/h) - missing non-breaking spaces.
- August: switch the link of tropical wave to the first mention.
- September and October: category 1 but Category 3 - be consistent with capitalisation.
- September and October: 90 mph (145 km/h) - more missing non-breaking spaces.
- September and October: shift link of Britain to the first mention, and either disambiguate it or expand it to the correct form.
- Impact: perhaps link Florida Panhandle?
- Forecasting uncertainty: The first sentence seems to repeat itself a bit.
- Forecasting uncertainty: "Also, for some of the same factors..., several of the tropical cyclones in the season were forecasted with error." - difficult to parse.
- Accumulated Cyclone Energy (ACE) rating - section lacks references.
- Overall: Very good article. High readability, good depth, clearly cited, and with several illustrative images. Most of the above comments are just nit-picky details, and once they're fixed I don't see any major problems standing in the way of an FAC. Good luck! GeeJo (t)⁄(c) • 18:54, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
- Thank you for the helpful comments. The issue about the lack of sources in the ACE section is probably unfixable, as you will see with other hurricane season FAs, are generally unsourced, as there are no sources. Other than that, I fixed pretty much everything. Thanks! Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 00:04, 21 April 2008 (UTC)