| Toolbox |
|---|
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because…I'm looking for further feedback on improving the article to where it will pass a Featured Article Candidacy. Please peer review the article as a Featured article would be reviewed.
Thanks, Ks0stm (T•C•G) 23:30, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
- Some comments. I think it needs some work before FAC.
- "Day x" is capitalized in some instances but not in others.
- Date ranges need endashes.
- Overall, I feel more general information is needed on the history and use of the SPC, based on outside sources. It seems only one source cited in the article does not come from the SPC itself (or related agencies).
- I'm also not sure the example boxes are needed. They're hard to read, and they're more relevant to the particular advisory than the SPC.
Just a few things I noticed at first glance. Hope this helps a tad. Juliancolton | Talk 19:56, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
Ruhrfisch comments: Interesting article, but I garee with all of Julian's comments above. Here are some more suggestions for improvement, with an eye to FAC.
- The disambig links tool finds two circular redirects (links in the article back to itself) that should at least be looked at.
- Everyone keeps bringing this up. Those two redirects I have categorized as "Redirects with possibilities" because theoretically those two topics could have their own article, but right now the content on those two topics is located in the SPC article (mainly because no one has gotten around to writing separate articles for those topics yet). Ks0stm (T•C•G) 03:31, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
- Although alt text for those who cannot see the images is no longer required for FAC, it is still a nice thing to add to images - see WP:ALT
- In the lead, I thought that the repetition of "Day 1, Day 2, Day 3, and Day 4–8" and the similar days for fire weather was a bit much. The lead is supposed to be a clear summary / overview, so I would explain the forecast days, but avoid the repetitive detail in the lead.
- I attempted to make it seem less repetitive, but I don't know how I can achieve full non-repetitiveness while also explaining what day segments the fire weather outlooks are issued for. Ks0stm (T•C•G) 03:31, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
- The article has a fair number of short (one or two sentence) paragraphs, which disrupt the flow for the reader. I would either combine them with other paragraphs or perhaps expand them.
- The table in the "Issuance and usage" section have odd uses of bold and italic text - why for example is it sometimes "MDT" and other times "MDT"?
- That is explained in the header for the tables. Ks0stm (T•C•G) 03:31, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
- Make sure to provide context for the reader - see WP:PCR. For example in the Mesoscale discussions section, there is this large lump of text (the example discussion) but no real explanation of the specifics in it - I am not sure the average international reader would necessarily know what "WRN KS...PARTS OF WRN OK/ERN TX PNHDL" means, for example.
- Similarly the maps could identify the states depicted
- Those maps are the original SPC products, but would not be so if I added state labels to them. Which is better, having the original example or having state labels? Ks0stm (T•C•G) 03:31, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
- Would it be possible to also discuss the actual weather to compare it to the predictions for both examples?
- For refs 8 and 18, I would still give publisher, date accessed, etc. Agree that more independent, third-party sources are needed, especially for this to pass FAC.
Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). I do not watch peer reviews, so if you have questions or comments, please contact me on my talk page. Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 16:05, 21 May 2010 (UTC)