Wikipedia:Peer review/1947 Sydney hailstorm/archive1
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because... I'd like some feedback on grammar, structure, and length, and whether this stands a chance at FAC.
Thanks, Daniel (talk) 08:46, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
dihydrogen monoxide
[edit]- Hailstroms fail WP:N ;)
- Inactionable :)
- Infobox image?
- Erm, struggling. There's really no images available, except the ones I already have. I've added a barometric map from the day of the event.
- The image at User:Daniel/Sandbox/Hailstorms in Sydney could go in the infobox, as you did with that other FA storm.
- The em dashes in the References section look odd
- Changed to regular dashes.
- Is the Damage section of the infobox for summarising injuries, or something else?
- No, dollar amount.
- Move images to Commons
- You can - I'm hopeless :)
- In future, this does it automatically. I'll do it today :) dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 22:16, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
- "presumed to be thunder," - might need a source for this statement
- I've moved the reference forward.
- "as "though [he] was back in the firing line overseas"" - need a source for the quote. Also per WP:MOS#Italics you don't need quotation marks and italics (for the whole article)
- Ditto above for the reference. For the quotes, fixed, although I think it looks better the other way :)
- It does, usually, but there's this thing called consensus ;) dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 22:16, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
- "of the main Central railway station" - not sure if it should be capitalised...
- You can tell you aren't a Sydney resident :) It is meant to be capitalised, but I can see why one may think otherwise
As usual, nice stuff. Looking forward to FAC. No concerns re. length. dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 09:15, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
- Cheers, thanks for that. Will post my notes to yours tomorrow afternoon. Daniel (talk) 11:31, 13 March 2008 (UTC)