Wikipedia:Peer review/1947 Sydney hailstorm/archive1

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because... I'd like some feedback on grammar, structure, and length, and whether this stands a chance at FAC.

Thanks, Daniel (talk) 08:46, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

dihydrogen monoxide

edit
  • Hailstroms fail WP:N ;)
  • Inactionable :)
  • Infobox image?
  • Erm, struggling. There's really no images available, except the ones I already have. I've added a barometric map from the day of the event.
  • The em dashes in the References section look odd
  • Changed to regular dashes.
  • Is the Damage section of the infobox for summarising injuries, or something else?
  • No, dollar amount.
  • Move images to Commons
  • You can - I'm hopeless :)
  • "presumed to be thunder," - might need a source for this statement
  • I've moved the reference forward.
  • "as "though [he] was back in the firing line overseas"" - need a source for the quote. Also per WP:MOS#Italics you don't need quotation marks and italics (for the whole article)
  • Ditto above for the reference. For the quotes, fixed, although I think it looks better the other way :)
  • "of the main Central railway station" - not sure if it should be capitalised...
  • You can tell you aren't a Sydney resident :) It is meant to be capitalised, but I can see why one may think otherwise

As usual, nice stuff. Looking forward to FAC. No concerns re. length. dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 09:15, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers, thanks for that. Will post my notes to yours tomorrow afternoon. Daniel (talk) 11:31, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]