Wikipedia:Peer review/1911 Atlantic hurricane season/archive1
| Toolbox |
|---|
This peer review discussion has been closed.
.
I've listed this article for peer review because I'd like to nominate it for FA eventually, and since I already have an article up, I figured I'd take this one to PR in the meantime. Shouldn't be any major issues, just looking to see if I'm missing any nuances.
Thanks, Juliancolton (talk) 20:35, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
- You're missing three tropical depressions. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 21:12, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
- Oh, and if you're going for FA, the sections on storm one and five could be a little longer, such as what data allowed for what upgrades (ship, land station, implied pressure reading). Also, seeing "$12 thousand dollars" is sort of awkward, since it'd be much less to just write $12,000. The article could also go more into how the storms were treated at the time. For example, who issued what type of warnings, and who got them. Something that emphasizes how different it is from what the NHC does nowadays. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 21:15, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
Finetooth comments: I agree with Hurricanehink that something explaining the differences between then and now would help make this article more interesting.
- Where is the information about Hurricane One? Or does the numbering system go 1, 2, 3 ... without regard to storm intensity? If so, this should be explained for the general reader. I think it would be a good idea to include mention of the differences in the 1911 naming system and the later naming system and the date of the switch from no-names to names for hurricanes.
Lead
- "Storm data is largely based on the Atlantic hurricane database, which underwent a thorough revision for the period between 1911 and 1914 in 2005." - Maybe this could summarize a short first section added to the article. The new section might include an elaboration of "thorough revision" and include information about the kinds of equipment available in 2011 that did not exist in 1911. Something about the naming conventions might appear here too.
Hurricane Two
- "estimating total damage in Pensacola at $12,000 (1911 USD, $281,914 2011 USD)" - The data inside the parentheses is too precise. I can't point you to a specific debate about this, but I've seen discussions at FAC about getting varied results from varied inflation calculators. In any case, something like (1911 USD, $282,000 2011 USD") would be better, and since $12,000 was only an estimate, I'd think about rounding to $300,000.
Hurrricane Three
- "after an anemometer, whose last report was 94 mph (151 km/h), failed," - Link anemometer?
- "after an anemometer, whose last report was 94 mph (151 km/h), failed," - Since an anemometer is a "which" rather than a "who", perhaps recast as "after an anemometer, last reporting 94 mph (151 km/h), failed,"?
Hurricane Four
- "Data on this storm is extremely scarce; as such, only minor revisions could be made to its chronology in the hurricane database,[1] and few impact reports are in existence." - The last claim needs a source. Maybe you don't need to make the last claim since "data on this storm is extremely scarce" seems to cover it.
References
- The all-caps part of citation 4 should be changed to Wikipedia house style ("Pensacola Storm Loss Big") even though the source uses all-caps. Ditto for citation 7.
- Authors should be listed last name first in the citations.
I hope these suggestions prove helpful. If so, please consider commenting on any other article at WP:PR. I don't usually watch the PR archives or make follow-up comments. If my suggestions are unclear, please ping me on my talk page. Finetooth (talk) 20:32, 9 March 2011 (UTC)