Wikipedia:Peer review/Dvorak technique/archive1
This is a very technical subject. However the Dvorak technique is widely used in meteorology and I think it deserves a great article. Is the article easy to understand? Is anything unclear? Any suggestions to make this technical subject easier to understand? Is it too short? Thanks. TimL 04:13, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
- With the pictures of the storms at the bottom, i think there should be atleast one NW Pacific storm. And plus, they don't all have to be at the beginnings of their life. Icelandic Hurricane #12(talk) 11:55, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
- How many pictures would be approriate. This article, theoretically could have dozens of pictures to illustrate how storms of a particular intensity have similarities. I think if they are sufficiently small, this will be OK. TimL 18:34, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
- now that my scanners up and running again I can try and draw copy of the reference images that were in Dvorak's original paper...I have some quick sketches of them that I made when I was taking notes while I was reading it...[1] (top 4 sketches) tell me if you want me to go ahead and draw themDr Denim 15:03, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
- I tihnk I found them here in this presentation. TimL 18:36, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
- now that my scanners up and running again I can try and draw copy of the reference images that were in Dvorak's original paper...I have some quick sketches of them that I made when I was taking notes while I was reading it...[1] (top 4 sketches) tell me if you want me to go ahead and draw themDr Denim 15:03, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
- How many pictures would be approriate. This article, theoretically could have dozens of pictures to illustrate how storms of a particular intensity have similarities. I think if they are sufficiently small, this will be OK. TimL 18:34, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
- This article is a bit too short, and therefore may not be as comprehensive as WP:WIAFA critera 2(b) is looking for. Please see if anything can be expanded upon.
- Please provide WP:CITE information for references/footnotes. See also WP:CITE/ES; templates like {{Cite web}} and {{Cite book}} may be useful here.
- I'm confused by this comment. Isn't that already in the article? Or is there something I'm missing? Thanks TimL 14:41, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
- Yes, it is now; when I peer reviewed it it did not however. Thanks, AndyZ t 23:54, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
- I'm confused by this comment. Isn't that already in the article? Or is there something I'm missing? Thanks TimL 14:41, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
- Per WP:CONTEXT and WP:MOSDATE, years, decades, and centuries without full dates generally should not be linked. For example, January 2006 should not be linked, instead change it to January 2006. Also, please note WP:BTW and WP:CONTEXT, which state that years with full dates should be linked. For example, February 28, 2006, should be come February 28, 2006.
- Why is Technique capitalized in the first sentence?
- Thanks, AndyZ t 12:54, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
- In response to AndyZ's bullet point about date links. This can be done easily using a 'dates' tab in edit mode. Simply copy the entire contents of User:Bobblewik/monobook.js to your own monobook. Then follow the instructions in your monobook to clear the cache before it will work. You will also get a 'units' tab. Hope that helps. bobblewik 13:52, 29 May 2006 (UTC)