Wikipedia:Peer review/Hurricane Edith (1971)/archive1
This article about a Category 5 hurricane had been greatly improved in the last few days by User:Hurricanehink and is now a GA. What is needed for it to become an FA? CrazyC83 21:18, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
- Don't wish to earn the title of "Captain Obvious" but the "Aftermath" section seems a little slim? The rest of the article was a quite good read. - Tutmosis 01:12, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
- I know it's short, but there's nothing else about aftermath. Would it be better as part of the impact, and rename the impact section to Impact & Aftermath. Hurricanehink (talk) 01:31, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
- Yes I would definetely support such a merge. Small sections kind of ruin the visual dispay of the article, and for a good article like this it would be a shame. - Tutmosis 01:40, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
- You're right, it looks much better now. Hurricanehink (talk) 01:43, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
- Do we really need to link all of those dates in the article? IMO, they're unnecessary and somewhat distracting. Gzkn 05:56, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
- We do that for all tropical cyclone articles. If I were to change it for this article, it would have to be done for all 400 other articles. Such standards have been in place for a few years now (linking every date). Would it be better to remove some of the dates entirely, or just remove the wikilinks? If you think such a change would be required for our 400+ articles, feel free to bring it up at our talk page. Hurricanehink (talk) 17:14, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
- Ah, thanks for clarifying. Wasn't familiar with that standard. What was the reasoning behind it? Or is there an archived page somewhere where it was decided that I can read up on? Thanks. Gzkn 02:23, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
- It's more just an unofficial standard the tropical cyclone project. We all just decided to link every date that we mention. It was never challenged, so that's just what we've been doing. Hurricanehink (talk) 02:34, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
- Ah, thanks for clarifying. Wasn't familiar with that standard. What was the reasoning behind it? Or is there an archived page somewhere where it was decided that I can read up on? Thanks. Gzkn 02:23, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
- We do that for all tropical cyclone articles. If I were to change it for this article, it would have to be done for all 400 other articles. Such standards have been in place for a few years now (linking every date). Would it be better to remove some of the dates entirely, or just remove the wikilinks? If you think such a change would be required for our 400+ articles, feel free to bring it up at our talk page. Hurricanehink (talk) 17:14, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
- Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, AZ t 02:53, 5 November 2006 (UTC)