Wikipedia:Peer review/Tropical Storm Henri (2003)/archive1
I created this article, and it was upgraded to GA a month ago. Does anyone have any suggestions before I should make an FAC run? --Hurricanehink (talk) 13:52, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
Review by thunderboltza.k.a.Deepu Joseph |TALK
- wikilink Gulf of Mexico (in the lead), Tropical Depression Twelve, shear,Pennsylvania, Hockessin[
- The claims in the lead all need references.
- De-link individual dates using the famous - "Do you think the reader will benifit anything by cliking this" theory.
- reached a peak strength of 60 mph (95 km/h) later on September 5 - needs ref
- twelve shelters were placed on standby - needs ref
- with the worst of the flooding occurring in Delaware. - needs ref
- Expand FEMA atleast once in the article.
- aid through FEMA, totaling to just over $1 million (2003 USD). - needs ref
- Over twenty volunteer organizations met to establish a long-term committee to find resources for disaster recovery needs. - needs ref
-- thunderboltza.k.a.Deepu Joseph |TALK14:10, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
- Thanks for the imput. I wikilinked GOM. Tropical Depression Twelve does not need a wikilink (it's part of the storm), shear is already wikilinked and doesn't need another one later in the same paragraph, Pennsylvania has wikilinks at the beginning of the sections and aren't needed 2 or three times, and Hockessin already has a wikilink at its first mention. The information in the lead is mentioned later in the article. Per the six featured articles I've already written, if the information is sourced later in the article, it doesn't need a reference in the lead. Also per the other 6 featured articles, dates are always wikilinked. If you strongly think I should change it, you should contact the Tropical Cyclone Wikiproject, as all 300 tropical cyclone articles wikilink dates. The peak strength has a ref, but it isn't right next to it. The references are at the end of the section where I got the information from. If the entire paragraph came from one source, I will put the source at the end of the paragraph. The same goes for the 12 shelters. Flooding in Delaware is mentioned in the Mid-Atlantic section. How should I expand FEMA? FEMA aid and the volunteer organizations have a reference. Are there any other problems other than references, as the references are, IMO, fine as they are? --Hurricanehink (talk) 14:27, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
- As I said in my edit summary, it was just a quick look. I didnt notice it being wikilinked earlier. And the refs seem fine. And by expanding "FEMA" I meant writing it as "Federal Emergency Management Agency". There are a couple of bots around that de-links any individual dates unless the article has special importance to that day. -- thunderboltza.k.a.Deepu Joseph |TALK14:44, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
- Cool, ok. I expanded FEMA on its first use. I don't know if the dates should be de-linked, simply based on every other tropical cyclone article. True, they don't hold much importance to the tropical cyclone, but in the same regard, how useful is having links to locations? The storm doesn't have much significance to Florida, though Florida should certainly be linked. I know I'm being facetious, but if it ain't broke, don't fix it. I don't think there's much harm in linking to the dates, especially considering every other article does it the same way. --Hurricanehink (talk) 14:59, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
- Just yesterday, there was an edit war at WP:WIAFA about a suggestions link that suggested the "Bobblewik standard", so a change from one standard to another certainly is controversial. In fact, the links are only a guideline, and in-topic consistency is preferred. Additionally, if I can remember correctly, Wikipedia talk:Lead section had a suggestion of not referencing in the lede unless a claim is controversial, and since none of these claims are, they shouldn't be. An example of an article being opposed due to that is Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/National Anthem of Russia. Titoxd(?!?) 17:15, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
- Wow. Thanks for the info. --Hurricanehink (talk) 17:22, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
- Just yesterday, there was an edit war at WP:WIAFA about a suggestions link that suggested the "Bobblewik standard", so a change from one standard to another certainly is controversial. In fact, the links are only a guideline, and in-topic consistency is preferred. Additionally, if I can remember correctly, Wikipedia talk:Lead section had a suggestion of not referencing in the lede unless a claim is controversial, and since none of these claims are, they shouldn't be. An example of an article being opposed due to that is Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/National Anthem of Russia. Titoxd(?!?) 17:15, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
- Cool, ok. I expanded FEMA on its first use. I don't know if the dates should be de-linked, simply based on every other tropical cyclone article. True, they don't hold much importance to the tropical cyclone, but in the same regard, how useful is having links to locations? The storm doesn't have much significance to Florida, though Florida should certainly be linked. I know I'm being facetious, but if it ain't broke, don't fix it. I don't think there's much harm in linking to the dates, especially considering every other article does it the same way. --Hurricanehink (talk) 14:59, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
- Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, Andy t 21:42, 5 July 2006 (UTC)