Wikipedia:Peer review/2011 Joplin tornado/archive1

2011 Joplin tornado

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
According to the first GA nomination, User:Wizardman Suggested that "This can be re-nominated in about a month or so, whenever things seem to stabilize numbers-wise." Although my lack of edits on this page, I am confident I can address any questions on the article.

Thanks, intelati^talk 00:41, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I highly recommend this not be nominated for GA or higher until information has been published in Storm Data (or the NCDC Storm Events Database). This is the official "final" data on any given storm event and until it is released all information is considered preliminary. Ks0stm ^(T•C•G) 01:04, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Here is the NWS Service Assessment. It's not Storm Data, but information in this would be highly useful to the article. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 21:41, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Jappalang

I agree with the sentiments that it would be better to wait for more reports. Events surrounding the tornado may not have settled or reached their full conclusion yet. That said, there are some things that can be done to improve the article.

Tidy up the references to a consistent standard. There are several that simply states the domain of the website (e.g. Joplinglobe.com). These should be formatted to follow the rest (all should be using {{citation}} or the cite templates) with author, date and other relevant information filled in.
I feel the reading quality of the article dives down after the first three paragraphs. From that point on, skimpy paragraphs of one to three short sentences tend to dominate. The flow is choppy and several times, the sentences do not flow to the next paragraph either because of jarring phrasings or non-sequitur contents.
There are too many links in the See also and External links section. Be selective. There is no need to provide a link farm; unless the direct link provides something that is not in the article but can be further of use to the reader, do not include them.
Why is there an inline link to DonorsChoose.org at the end of the article? Why is this charity mentioned here? What differentiates it from other organizations that are trying to help recovery from natural disasters? If there are no secondary sources covering this charity's activity, there should be no mention. Wikipedia is not here to promote such activities or organizations.
File:Joplin-tornado-map.jpg: Apparently, Kansas City has pulled this image from their flickr uploads. Other US Army Engineer diagrams still seem to be there. It may bear worth to investigate this. Is this map pulled from the uploads because it has errors (if that is the case, then it should not be used here)?

While waiting for the official reports and perhaps a few "look back" opinion pieces to be published, a copy-editing can be undertaken to make the article much more smooth in its language. Jappalang (talk) 06:14, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I just deleted the Piccadilly Circus, retired couple home, DonorsChoose.org paragraphs as they don't add much to the article, and are choppy.--intelati talk 03:30, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Image Done Actually I found a map with a satellite image of Joplin. Thanks for prompting me on that.--intelati talk 03:20, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]