Wikipedia:Peer review/1998 Comfrey – St. Peter tornado outbreak/archive1
- This peer review discussion has been closed.
- 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 July 2008.
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because the article recently passed GA, and I'm hoping to submit it for FAC at some point in the near future. There are currently not any tornado outbreak articles that have been promoted to FA, so there isn't a clear cut definition of how an article like this needs to setup to be FA-worthy. (There has been one candidate that I know of, but it was not promoted.) I think the two things I'm looking for the most are:
- Can you think of any other areas or topics an article like this should cover to make it comprehensive enough for FAC.
- Are there any other obvious things that would need to be fixed before submitting for FAC.
Thanks, WxGopher (talk) 03:57, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
Comments from Ealdgyth (talk · contribs)
- You said you wanted to know what to work on before taking to FAC, so I looked at the sourcing and referencing with that in mind. I reviewed the article's sources as I would at FAC.
- You spell out one abbreviation (NCDC) (thanks!) but don't on NOAA. Probably should do all of them.
- Current ref 14 (Steil, Mark) is lacking a last access date Same for current ref 18 (same author)
- Current ref 25 (Coleman, Nick) is lacking last access date.
- Hope this helps. Please note that I don't watchlist Peer Reviews I've done. If you have a question about something, you'll have to drop a note on my talk page to get my attention. (My watchlist is already WAY too long, adding peer reviews would make things much worse.) 13:42, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
- Got em all, thanks! WxGopher (talk) 04:03, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
Comments from Wackymacs (talk · contribs):
- Lead does not summarize the article, needs expansion per WP:LEAD. (I would add another paragraph of equal size to the current one.)
- Do not link months/days on their own (only link full dates with year).
- There are a couple words which don't need to be linked, such as 'Weather forecasters' and 'thunderstorm'.
- Images licenses are fine, sources look good.
- Overall prose looks very good. This is a nice, short article that is well referenced.
— Wackymacs (talk ~ edits) 16:02, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks for the comments. I was wondering about the lead... I think it looks better now WxGopher (talk) 04:03, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
- Much better! — Wackymacs (talk ~ edits) 07:55, 24 July 2008 (UTC)