Wikipedia:Peer review/Hurricane Floyd/archive1

Hurricane Floyd

We've recently expanded this article greatly. The writers at Wikipedia:WikiProject Tropical cyclones have agreed this is a good article, so we're putting it up for peer review before a possible featured article candidacy. Any activity is appreciated, whether it's on content or on technical details. — jdorje (talk) 05:44, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Haven't read thoroughly, but the Impact section overwhelms the Table of content. there is also a one-sentence section in there, which you'llwant to rework: one paragraph sections alone aretypically frowned upon. Also, youmight want to remove the frames in Image:Floydfranklin.jpg and Image:Floyd Tar River Flooding.jpg, but that is a purely personal gripe I have with these types of pictures. Circeus 21:08, 10 February 2006 (UTC) Also, for images that needs longer explanation or color charts, you might want to look into the great pseudo frames at Saffron. Circeus 21:22, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good points. I removed the subsections from the North Carolina section, and added a "key" for the flood map graphic. — jdorje (talk) 04:26, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Now the North Carolina is overloaded with pictures lol (and that's even ignoring the larger frame given to image:Floyd_flood_map.jpg, which I reworked a bit). Is it possibleto redistribute them through the article, or make a gallery? Circeus 17:07, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's better, yes. I'd still consider either a) selecting only one of the two flood map or b) moving one to another section, if only because Image:Floyd Rocky Mount flooding.gif, while a great animation, does not scale well at all, and putting it at a bigger size there would be overkill. Circeus 17:54, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Guide_to_layout#Standardized_appendices for the preferred order of appendices and Wikipedia:Cite sources/example style for the preferred citation of references. Two things that may not make it through FAC is the "Trivia" section (either it's important and should be included into the body or it's trivial and should be omitted) and the "Retirement" section (not sure if that is a sentence, paragraph or section but the statement is not compelling prose. --maclean25 22:05, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- I changed the order of appendices, and used {{web reference}} and {{news reference}} for the citations. The "retirement" section is standard for retired storms and generally quite short, but we've expanded it to be a little longer. Not sure what to do about the trivia...it is indeed trivial, and may not be worth keeping. — jdorje (talk) 03:52, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is generally frowned upon to put trivia in featured articles. Wasn't that section called "Erroneously Attributed Satellite Image" or something at an earlier date? Perhaps it could be renamed. Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 17:50, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- Renaming it doesn't make it any less trivia. As interesting as it is, it is definitely a trivial bit of information, and it doesn't belong in any of the "notable" sections (storm history/preparations/impact/aftermath). — jdorje (talk) 20:06, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Remove the trivia section. It's not notable and unencyclopedic. -- §Hurricane E RIC§^Damagesarchive 21:42, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]