Wikipedia:Peer review/Hurricane Katrina/archive1

Hurricane Katrina

This article is quite good already, but Wikipedia:WikiProject Tropical cyclones would like to know what else is missing for a potential FAC. This article is controversial, so it really needs all the eyes it can get. Tito xd^{(?!? - help us)} 23:48, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see why the storm history as a separate article is needed. You can just merge it right into the article as it is; it shouldn't add to much to the length of the article. Icelandic Hurricane #12_(talk) 00:01, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good point. Unfortunately, it would remove a few images, but the text should be fine. I think the article is probably too long, and should be cut down in places, especially the aftermath. Hurricanehink (talk) 00:11, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's difficult to cut something from that section without leaving the article with a feeling of incompleteness; however, the NGO response is unnecessary, IMO, so if something is cut, it should be that. Tito xd^{(?!? - help us)} 00:51, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The NGO response is significant unfortunately, if it wasnt we could get rid of the spam magnet, though maybe it can be shortened. Perhaps some govt response (the ex-presidents?) could be cut down a little?--Nilfanion (talk) 21:23, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, all the citations have to be transferred to {{cite web}} format, and to get accessdate parameters filled out. Tito xd^{(?!? - help us)} 00:51, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There are a lot of references here. What do we gain by moving to {{cite web}}? TimL 01:41, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, that is a prerequisite for FA's. Hurricanehink (talk) 01:43, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) FAC requires inline citations, and WP:CITE/ES is the recommended format. A few users may oppose a FAC for "bare diff" references. {{subst:cite web}} references don't have any problems, though. Tito xd^{(?!? - help us)} 01:44, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

One thing which is obviously capable of being cut down is "media involvement". All the other sections (apart from retirement) have subarticles - why not that one? If it did, that (minor) section could be trimmed. Oh and Hardy Jackson could disappear into it...--Nilfanion (talk) 21:23, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea. That should cut out a few kbs. Hurricanehink (talk) 21:34, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Does Hurricane Katrina media involvement work? Seems not quite right to me... On real benefit is it can be in the aftermath as opposed to being its own top level section (it only deals with aftermath coverage...). We could also do a records/naming section - I'm neutral on that.--Nilfanion (talk) 12:37, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What about Media involvement in Hurricane Katrina? I support something like that to trim it down some. Hurricanehink (talk) 15:16, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That suggests the media was somehow involved in the storm itself though. Media involvement in Hurricane Katrina's aftermath? Its overly long but its more accurate.--Nilfanion (talk) 15:38, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The apostrophe looks a little weird... What about Media involvement in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina? That's a bit longer, but there's no problem with long titles. Hurricanehink (talk) 16:20, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Done that, 8 kb to the subarticle. Both the remaining section in Katrina and the subarticle need a bit of rework for the new layout though.--Nilfanion (talk) 16:54, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Forgive me if these are already covered somewhere, but what about the Demographic effects. There should be a a daughter article Demographic effects of Hurricane Katrina ultimately, but there needs to be some mention in the main article as well. I'm from Houston originally and basically everyday the Chronicle has a story about Katrina refugees and the long-term demographic impact they are going to have on Houston and Texas. The hurricane displaced a lot of people and a lot of them decided to stay elsewhere; this has had an effect all across the U.S., not just in nearby states. Mayor Nagan's "chocolate city" comments are also relevant here. The long-term effects on the demographics of New Orleans are reported on a lot but it would be good if Wikipedia could bring them together in a single article. Not just in terms of race but also economics. A lot of land got bought up by developers etc. That's all I've got for now. savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 11:42, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We do have a significant amount of statistics on the main article, and I'm not entirely sure if we have enough info to make another split. Tito xd^{(?!? - help us)} 22:08, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]