Wikipedia:Peer review/Tornado/archive1

Tornado

General comments needed in preparation for Featured Article Nomination. Especially looking for comments from people unfamiliar with the subject to comment on its readability and comprehensiveness. -Running On Brains 05:26, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question.

There may be an applicable infobox for this article. For example, see Template:Infobox Biography, Template:Infobox School, or Template:Infobox City.^[?] (Note that there might not be an applicable infobox; remember that these suggestions are not generated manually)
Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (numbers), when doing conversions, please use standard abbreviations: for example, miles -> mi, kilometers squared -> km², and pounds -> lb.^[?]
Per Wikipedia:Context and Wikipedia:Build the web, years with full dates should be linked; for example, link January 15, 2006.^[?]
Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (headings), headings generally should not repeat the title of the article. For example, if the article was Ferdinand Magellan, instead of using the heading ==Magellan's journey==, use ==Journey==.^[?]
Per WP:WIAFA, this article's table of contents (ToC) may be too long- consider shrinking it down by merging short sections or using a proper system of daughter pages as per Wikipedia:Summary style.^[?]
Please make the spelling of English words consistent with either American or British spelling, depending upon the subject of the article. Examples include: honor (A) (British: honour), meter (A) (British: metre), organize (A) (British: organise), ization (A) (British: isation), isation (B) (American: ization), analyze (A) (British: analyse), grey (B) (American: gray).
Watch for redundancies that make the article too wordy instead of being crisp and concise. (You may wish to try Tony1's redundancy exercises.)
- Vague terms of size often are unnecessary and redundant - “some”, “a variety/number/majority of”, “several”, “a few”, “many”, “any”, and “all”. For example, “~~All~~ pigs are pink, so we thought of ~~a number of~~ ways to turn them green.”
Avoid using contractions like (outside of quotations): don't.
As done in WP:FOOTNOTE, footnotes usually are located right after a punctuation mark (as recommended by the CMS, but not mandatory), such that there is no space in between. For example, the sun is larger than the moon [2]. is usually written as the sun is larger than the moon.[2]^[?]
Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a.^[?]

Awadewit

While I grew up in tornado alley, I am no expert on tornadoes. As a lay reader, I found your page readable and informative; I had no trouble understanding your clear and cogent explanations. I also thought that your images were excellent. Here are my suggestions.

I think that you can probably find more reliable sources; most of your references are web-based sources and FAs aim for peer-reviewed, print sources. WP:RS Also, significant sections of the article, such as the "Definition," the "Shape" and the "Appearance" section, for example, lack citations for significant facts.
Perhaps replace "They" with "Tornados" at the beginning of the third lead paragraph so that the pronoun reference is clear.
I would integrate the etymology section into the definition section; the section doesn't really fit your scheme.
The article seems to me, anyway, to be a bit comma-happy. For example, there are too many commas in the second paragraph of the "Definition" section and in the fourth paragraph of the "Life style" section. Not every subordinate clause has to be set off with commas!
"in addition to tornados" seems tacked on to the last sentence in the third paragraph in the "Defition" section - perhaps you could reword the sentence?
"Multivortex structure" sentence in "Definition" section needs a semicolon or restructuring.
Perhaps you could remove some of the links, particularly in the "Definition" section; once you have linked a term in a section, you do not need to relink it (as I understand it, anyway).
Perhaps you could have a brief "Definition" section and then a more expansive "Types of Tornadoes" section to break up the large "Definition" section?
I thought the "prediction" section should be moved further down the article - later sections are better and more informative.
There are also some tiny formatting issues such odd spacing for footnotes in the text, but these can easily be cleaned up.
I would integrate the "Social implications of tornadoes" into the "Cultural significance" section and try to tighten it up a bit since the article is mainly a scientific explanation of a natural phenomenon and is already rather long. I might even consider suggesting a deletion of the "Cultural significance" section or perhaps a separate page.
There must be more books on tornadoes that you can suggest to the interested reader in the "Further Reading" section!

Awadewit 04:55, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All very good suggestions! Nice to have an english specialist near with all these scientists flying around :) -Running On Brains 22:25, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Plek's comments

A worthy challenge! I will give the article a thorough look later, but as a first suggestion, please remove the nonsense about "tornado taste". WP:RS and WP:BOLLOCKS would apply, I'd say. --Plek 17:11, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, that was vandalism, user has been warned. -Running On Brains 22:23, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]