Wikipedia:Peer review/Autumn 2011 United Kingdom heat wave/archive1
| Toolbox |
|---|
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I want to see what people on here think of the article I wrote as my friends and family think it is pretty good, and I also don't think it is as good as it could be so I was wondering how I can improve it?
Thanks, Skyline0304 (talk) 19:03, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
Brianboulton comments: You are a new and, I imagine, young editor, and this is your firat attempts at creating an article. You've done reasonably well to summarise this weather phenomenon in the lead section, but there is very little thereafter – just a few random and parochial "effects". There are hundreds, probably thousands, of weather-related articles on Wikipedia, many of which have gone through the Good Article and Featured Article processes. If you wish to build this into a quality article you should study some of these, to get a better idea of how to construct a good-quality article. Examples:-:
Of course, these are dealing with totally different weather situations, but they give you an idea as to the level of detail that you need to include for a comprehensive, good quality article. For your article, I would see the basic article structure as follows:-
- Lead: Broad general summary of the article, without too much detail
- Background: outline recent UK weather history, mention global warming etc
- Indian summer: broad account of the UK weather from late Sept to mid-Oct, highlighting the maximum temperatures achieved in some locations. Include in the discussion the extent to which the heatwave covered the whole country – were there areas that missed it? Did it rain anywhere?
- Effects: Expand the present section to give a better range of examples of how the weather impacted through these few weeks. Mention the extent to which the unusually warm weather was experienced outside then UK, e.g. in Europe.
- Aftermath: It may be too early to write much, but the question of winter drought might be an issue worth considering.
It is up to you to decide where to take this article, after a promising beginning. Peer review is "intended for high-quality articles that have already undergone extensive work, often as a way of preparing a featured article candidate," so a full review is premature at this point, but I hope these comments give you some idea as to how to move the article forward. Brianboulton (talk) 12:37, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks for the suggestions, I've made a start by formatting the lead section and placed the information into a timeline section, and also got rid of the prelude section which seemed irrelevant. I've added some more specific information about which places were affected and how they were. However, I've struggled to find any more information to go in the "effects" section could you give some examples? Thanks. Skyline0304 (talk) 20:46, 3 December 2011 (UTC)