Wikipedia:Peer review/Hurricane Lili/archive1
- A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for May 2008.
This peer review discussion has been closed.
Hey, I re-wrote this article about a month ago, and with some help from other editors it passed GA. Now I'm thinking FA and would like to get some input.
Thanks, TheNobleSith (talk) 21:30, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
- Some comments.
- There should be a better opening sentence of the article. Check out the openings to Hurricane Fabian, Hurricane Isabel, and Hurricane Juan.
- The lede should be expanded to 3 paragraphs, if possible
- Non-breaking spacing is needed throughout the article
- Unit rounding needs consistency. For example, if the first unit is rounded (50 mph), than the second unit must be rounded (85 km/h).
- Also, there is redundancy when writing US$2 million (2002 USD), as the USD already implies the US$. The US before the dollar sign should be dropped
- The storm history could be expanded, given how recent it was. For example, the rapid strengthening and weakening is not explained very well. Perhaps the biggest problem is that the SH relies heavily on the public advisories. The info from the public advisories is not that important, and is probably already in the TCR. A nice and thorough storm history should rely on the discussions: see Hurricane Kyle (2002).
- The fact that it was forecast to move ashore as a Category 4 hurricane should be mentioned
- The preparations section should go in order of places affected. Do all of the preps for the Lesser Antilles, then Greater Antilles, then Gulf Coast.
- Given how much damage there was, it'd be nice to see the Louisiana section expanded a little. Surely some buildings other than the 20 mentioned in Intracoastal City were destroyed in the state. The section could be better organized, too. There are a few options. One would be to have a paragraph for each aspect of the storm; one could be on the winds and the resulting wind damage, while another could be on the waves/surge and any beach erosion. Another option would be to combine all of the meteorological data into the first paragraph, and then list the impact by either area or by type (like one paragraph for agricultural damage, one for transport). Still another option would be to go by each area (coastline, New Orleans area, inland).
- All in all, decent work, but still needs more before FA is even considered. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 02:32, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
- For ease of reading, I removed the strike marks. Could you just post below the item for when you believe it was addressed? ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 04:18, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
Comments from Ealdgyth (talk · contribs)
- You said you wanted to know what to work on before taking to FAC, so that's what I did.
- Please spell out abbreviations in your references.
- Suggest switching to two columns in your references, for ease of reading and less white space.
- Some of your website references are lacking publisher information.
- There is a {{cite news}} template that is useful for citing newspaper articles, as it formats the title of the newspaper correctly.
- Per the WP:MOS, you shouldn't use all capitals (even with the title of the webpage is such).
- Current ref 35 has some weird formatting error
- What makes http://www.space.com/missionlaunches/sts112_delay_021002.html a reliable source?
- What makes http://www.asplundh.com/treemagpdfs/Holiday%202002%20PDF%20Files/Holiday%20Issue%202002%20Storm%20Work%20Pgs%202-3.pdf a reliable source? It looks like the insert I get in my power bill...
- Hope this helps. 16:44, 15 June 2008 (UTC)