Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Peer review/Hurricane Esther (1961)/archive1

< Wikipedia:Peer review‎ | Hurricane Esther (1961)

Hurricane Esther (1961)

edit

This is my first peer review request, and this article was recently upgraded to GA-class. I've added preparations, changed the sources to cite web format, and expanded the intro per post-GA suggestions, and I'd like to know how I could improve this article even more. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 02:58, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Here's some things that are needed before an FAC run.
  1. Longer intro- Preferably 3 paragraphs. Also, $6,000,000 should be written as $6 million.
  2. First paragraph of storm history doesn't have a source
  3. Also, the storm history doesn't flow terribly well. The third paragraph is out of order and a little redundant.
  4. Sourcing is needed for the second paragraph of the preparations section
  5. According to my English teacher, no two paragraphs should start with the same word. If that could be eliminated that would be great.
  6. Spacing- Some paragraphs are a bit short. If possible, you should combine some paragraphs
  7. Metrification- This should have been dealt with earlier. Every American unit should also have a Metric unit in parenthesis.
  8. Project Stormfury- Something is a bit contradictive. "Interestingly, the hurricane weakened slightly in response to the seeding." Interestingly is POV, so another word should be found. The main problem with that is that when the hurricane was 400 miles north of PR, it was strengthening. The exact date should be added, as well.
All in all, it's a good article. Is there any more information, though? Most of the info is from the Esther report or NOAA pages. --Hurricanehink (talk) 03:33, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to see what more information I can find in the Monthly Weather Review. For now, I've provided metric units where needed and removed the POV word "interestingly". I'll fix the Stormfury section later. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 04:01, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've found a couple more sources and expanded the intro, clarified the storm history, and fixed the Stormfury section (with help from the best track, which I'm surprised wasn't used to begin with). Anything else? --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 07:44, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The only thing I can think of is a three paragraph intro (which is a requirement for FA's), more impact, and another pic for the article. The article is a little colorless, so if there's another pic for the storm history, that'd be great. Of course, that's optional. --Hurricanehink (talk) 13:16, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm. That second paragraph was pretty hard to put together, any ideas on what I could do for the third? --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 13:28, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The first paragraph could be basics/storm history, the second could be impact, and the third could be the Navy flight stuff that's already there. --Hurricanehink (talk) 13:31, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, the intro's been expanded again. As for pictures, all I can find are some pictures from the Navy flight and some track maps. The article has one of each of those already. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 14:27, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Very nice. Too bad about the pics, but oh well. --Hurricanehink (talk) 18:13, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the storm history needs some correct organization; the first paragraph should be the beginnings of the storm, leading up to it reaching TS status. The second paragraph should continue from there until peak intensity, and the third paragraph should be the rest. I'll do it myself if that's okay, but feel free to do it differently or revert it if it isn't that great. Still, the article's very nice. If all or most of the things in this PR are solved, this should definetely become an A-class article. Good luck! :) íslenska hurikein #12 (samtal) 16:24, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ahh, never mind me organizing the storm history the right way; I keep messing with the refs. Someone else needs to do it, I guess. Also, someone (not me, I g2g) needs to add & n b s p ; (without the spaces, of course) to where it is needed. íslenska hurikein #12 (samtal) 16:28, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've gone ahead and reorganized the storm history section myself, per your advice. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 00:07, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I got the  's. This thing looks ready for FAC. --Hurricanehink (talk) 18:12, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also, is there any aftermath info? íslenska hurikein #12 (samtal) 20:34, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't really look like it. All I can find is basic impact info, and the power outages were resolved in a fairly timely manner. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 00:20, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Peer_review/Hurricane_Esther_(1961)/archive1&oldid=1138562014"