Wikipedia:Peer review/Climate of Argentina/archive1

Climate of Argentina

I've listed this article for peer review because I need comments related to the structure, lead sentence structure (after all the info has been added) and how to keep the text concise without losing any important information. I have been looking at other articles such as Climate of India and Climate of Minnesota as good examples in creating the structure of this article. This article does have the potential to become a good article or a featured article, particularly after improving and expanding this article for 4 months. However I am wondering where there should be a section dedicated to explaining the general factors (eg. atmospheric circulation patterns) since I think it would be good in explaining to readers why Argentina's climate is the way it is (why certain areas are dry, why precipitation is highly seasonal, why extreme minimum temperatures are much lower for its latitude, etc.). This section is not present in the climate of India article but is present in the Climate of Minnesota under the title "General climatology" I would appreciate any comments related to the prose, the grammar, and the flow, which I have trouble with, particularly with the Spanish sources.

Thanks, Ssbbplayer (talk) 21:24, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Comments from Cirt

Comments (having stumbled here from my Peer Review)

1. Thank you very much for your efforts to contribute to Quality improvement on Wikipedia, it's really most appreciated !!!
2. NOTE: Please respond, below entire set of comments, and not interspersed throughout, thanks!
3. Dab links tool - http://dispenser.homenet.org/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py?page=Climate_of_Argentina - shows no dablinks, so that's good.
4. Reflinks tool - http://dispenser.homenet.org/~dispenser/cgi-bin/reflinks.py?page=Climate_of_Argentina - shows no changes necessary there.
5. altviewer tool - http://dispenser.homenet.org/~dispenser/cgi-bin/altviewer.py?page=Climate_of_Argentina - shows several images need alt text.
6. Rdcheck tool - http://dispenser.homenet.org/~dispenser/cgi-bin/rdcheck.py?page=Climate_of_Argentina - shows some problems.
7. Citation bot tool - https://tools.wmflabs.org/citations/doibot.php?edit=toolbar&slow=1&page=Climate+of+Argentina - shows lots of problems.
8. Checklinks tool - http://dispenser.homenet.org/~dispenser/cgi-bin/webchecklinks.py?page=Climate_of_Argentina - shows at least a few issues.
9. Recommend posting to WP:GOCE to request a copyedit from the WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors.
10. Suggest placing neutrally-worded notice to talk pages of relevant WikiProjects linking to this Peer Review and asking for additional comments.
11. Suggest archiving hyperlinks in article with WP:CIT template fields archiveurl and archivedate using Wayback Machine by Internet Archive. Recommend archiving all links in article this way.
12. Per WP:LEADCITE, all info in lede should be already cited to in-line cites, below later in article main body text, thus, lede intro sect itself should not need cites, IFF info cited later in article, and it should be.
13. Per WP:LEAD, lede intro sect should be able to adequately standalone as a summary of the entire article's contents and all its subsections. Currently, lede should be expanded in order to do this properly.
14. In lede intro sect, two-sentence-long-paragraph as last paragraph in lede is just not cutting it.
15. This is a huge article. Suggest trimming it down in size, substantially.
16. This is a huge article. Suggest lede intro size of four full paragraphs, of length 4-5 sentences, each.
17. Major problems with article flow for reader, and structural organization. Huge paragraphs throughout article. Try splitting up paragraphs so they are only 4-5 sentences, each, throughout main article body text.
18. The climatic patterns roughly follow the geographic regional divisions. - unsourced sentence.
19. Notes sect - should not have sentence full hyperlinked like that. Should instead have in-line citation at end of the whole thing.
20. Copyvio Detector - https://tools.wmflabs.org/copyvios/ - taking way way way too long to load because article is too big. Another indication article size is way too big. Try to cut down size of article and then reevaluate with copy vio detector later.
21. Overall: Article is extremely well cited mostly, throughout. But it's way too unwieldy. Huge paragraphs that are triple or quadruple the recommended length of 4-5 sentences, each. Poor structural organization. Lack of flow for the reader. Way too much information, consider splitting off per WP:SUMMARYSTYLE.
22. NOTE: Please respond, below entire set of comments, and not interspersed throughout, thanks!

Thank you for the quality improvement efforts, so far. Hopefully above point-by-point recommendations are helpful to further improve the article in the future. Good luck, — Cirt (talk) 02:42, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback! I really appreciate it. I will definitely spend some time improving on it. Furthermore, I have requested a copyedit on GOCE owing to the daunting task of doing it by myself. Ssbbplayer (talk) 04:03, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

I have shortened the article a lot so the copyright violation has worked (though it took 5 minutes). I do not understand what does it mean when the copyright violation is unlikely with a 23.1% confidence? Is it a good number or should it be lower? Thanks. Ssbbplayer (talk) 01:30, 19 November 2015 (UTC)