Wikipedia:Peer review/Tropical Storm Grace (2009)/archive1

Tropical Storm Grace (2009)

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I think it is close to meeting the criteria for Featured Article candidate.

Thanks, TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk) 20:36, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Did you address all of the comments from the previous FAC? --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 21:16, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments - I'm not quite sure it's ready yet. A glance at the lede revealed a number of problems:

I don't think 9 named storms for a season is "inactive;" it's only slightly below average, so I'd leave it out.
I would replace "the system" with "Grace" in the second sentence to compromise the lack of a name mention in the following sentences.
Attaining a peak intensity of 65 mph (100 km/h), the formation of an eye-like feature was noted on satellite imagery, – Did the formation of an eye-like feature attain a peak intensity of 65 mph (100 km/h)? I'd tighten to "It strengthened to attain peak sustained winds of 65 mph (100 km/h) and developed an eye-like feature, although [...]"
When did it actually merge? I think it's worth a mention in the lede. Something like "The storm lost its tropical characteristics on x date, though its remnants persisted for most of October 6 before dissipating over England" would also work.
I also notice there isn't a single mention of its motion throughout the entire lede.
Although not solely related to the cyclone, heavy rainfall in Portugal led to some street flooding – The "Although" here is ungrammatical; either change into "Albeit" or (preferably) rewrite the sentence.
Get rid of the "approaching", write out inches, and remove the wikilinks from both units.
I'd remove the "However, no damage occurred," since it's not really necessary to mention what a storm didn't do in the lede.

In all, quite a few problems in the lede alone. Auree ★ 22:24, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ok let's see if I did this right -

The first sentence of the MH is bothering me a bit, but that's just my opinion.
As is the first sentence of the third paragraph... Probably restructure that sentence.
Also, when you're mentioning the merging of Grace with a frontal system it might be better to mention what happened before merging, before you mention the merging itself.

That was pretty much what I found, it seems pretty good overall, and I think I failed at this review. atomic 77 32 03:21, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]