Wikipedia:Peer review/Hurricane Naomi (1968)/archive1
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because…
As the creator of the article, I'm looking for some additional perception as to find out what this article needs to become better. I may up it for FAC if it passes, but for now, I'm wish for some other opinions of it. In particular, I want opinions on the writing and organization of the "Impact, records, and naming" section as well as intro prose. (Note: I've never done this before, so my behavior may be a tad...off.)
Thanks, Hurricane Angel Saki (talk) 21:44, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
Comments from Juliancolton
- Do you think you could eliminate the in-text list of rainfall amounts, and somehow incorperate it into the text? The MoS and general practices generally dislike in-text lists. Juliancolton The storm still blows... 19:17, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
- Comments from The Rambling Man (talk · contribs)
A very good article. Let's see if there's anything I can find...
- "ESSA-6 weather satellite" bit techie for the lead - perhaps either explain ESSA-6 or expand on it in the main body.
- Landfall caption doesn't need a full stop, it's a fragment.
- "Six more ship reports on September 9 reported winds..." could we do "On September 9, six more ships reported winds.."?
- "clearly showed the vortex and center" of what?
- "large feeder bands" what are these? FAC must appeal to non-experts so link or explain.
- "at 600 Greenwich Mean Time." - 0600 minimum but check with WP:DATE to ensure you're compliant with the MOS on times.
- "30 mi (48 km)-40 mi (64 km)" - en dash required in here instead of hyphen.
- Put (GMT) after the "Greenwich Mean Time" so it's clear to non-expert what that acronym means.
- First ref [8] needs to go the other side of the comma.
- Big gap in the Impact section between the paras.
- Why bold Naomi once only in the third para of Impact?
- I've got serious problems with access to lots of the links. Check this out to show you what I mean.
That's it. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:52, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
- I checked with the site earlier, and found from the main page that the site is undergoing maintenance. As a result, many and very likely all links to articles on that site are blocked until maintenance ends. After that, I'm very sure the links will be repaired.