Wikipedia:Peer review/Dvorak technique/archive1

Dvorak technique

This is a very technical subject. However the Dvorak technique is widely used in meteorology and I think it deserves a great article. Is the article easy to understand? Is anything unclear? Any suggestions to make this technical subject easier to understand? Is it too short? Thanks. TimL 04:13, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

With the pictures of the storms at the bottom, i think there should be atleast one NW Pacific storm. And plus, they don't all have to be at the beginnings of their life. Icelandic Hurricane #12_(talk) 11:55, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How many pictures would be approriate. This article, theoretically could have dozens of pictures to illustrate how storms of a particular intensity have similarities. I think if they are sufficiently small, this will be OK. TimL 18:34, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

now that my scanners up and running again I can try and draw copy of the reference images that were in Dvorak's original paper...I have some quick sketches of them that I made when I was taking notes while I was reading it...[1] (top 4 sketches) tell me if you want me to go ahead and draw themDr Denim 15:03, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I tihnk I found them here in this presentation. TimL 18:36, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This article is a bit too short, and therefore may not be as comprehensive as WP:WIAFA critera 2(b) is looking for. Please see if anything can be expanded upon.

Please provide WP:CITE information for references/footnotes. See also WP:CITE/ES; templates like {{Cite web}} and {{Cite book}} may be useful here.

I'm confused by this comment. Isn't that already in the article? Or is there something I'm missing? Thanks TimL 14:41, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it is now; when I peer reviewed it it did not however. Thanks, AndyZ _t 23:54, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:CONTEXT and WP:MOSDATE, years, decades, and centuries without full dates generally should not be linked. For example, January 2006 should not be linked, instead change it to January 2006. Also, please note WP:BTW and WP:CONTEXT, which state that years with full dates should be linked. For example, February 28, 2006, should be come February 28, 2006.
Why is Technique capitalized in the first sentence?
Thanks, AndyZ _t 12:54, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In response to AndyZ's bullet point about date links. This can be done easily using a 'dates' tab in edit mode. Simply copy the entire contents of User:Bobblewik/monobook.js to your own monobook. Then follow the instructions in your monobook to clear the cache before it will work. You will also get a 'units' tab. Hope that helps. bobblewik 13:52, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]