Jump to content

Wikipedia:Peer review/Hurricane Emilia (1994)/archive1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Hurricane Emilia (1994)[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because…

This should qualify for an Featured Article as i think that the article is already well written and i have improved upon it (not to mention it was already a good Article), the storm is a classic example of a category 5 hurricane in the pacific, it being the third strongest Central Pacific storm, and it has no unsourced info.and oh this storm is part of a Good topic.

Thanks, BlueTropicalWave (Talk) 03:42, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm worried if this even passes GA if reassessed. The first link's already dead.—CycloneIsaacE-Mail 20:03, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No, this should not qualify as a featured article. I have the following concerns.
Changed it so that it mentions that the tropical cyclone was, at the time, the strongest of its kind in the Central Pacific. TheAustinMan(Talk·Works) 03:05, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "It was the third most intense tropical cyclone in the central Pacific Ocean, attaining a minimum central pressure of 926 mbar (27.34 inHg) on July 19—only Gilma and Ioke reached lower pressures in the basin." false, CPAC is not a basin from a wiki standpoint. YE Pacific Hurricane 00:38, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Removed the mention of 'basin' and reworded some of the other details. TheAustinMan(Talk·Works) 03:05, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It shouldn't be. Though it isn't a policy but a general guideline, per WP:LEADLENGTH, an article with 15,000 characters (Emilia has 12,848, even with inline citations) should only have a lead of one to two paragraphs. Granted, Emilia was a strong, Category 5 hurricane, but lack of impacts nullify such overarching length requirements for strong storms. Also the hurricane's rather normal, usual uncontradicting synoptic history makes long leads simple rehashes of content. TheAustinMan(Talk·Works) 03:05, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not the principal researcher, but I added some of the impact into the lead. TheAustinMan(Talk·Works) 03:05, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "On July 14, an area of low pressure was detected in the Intertropical Convergence Zone 2,110 miles (3,400 km) east-southeast of the Hawai’ian chain.[1] It was traced to a tropical wave that left the African coast on June 29.[1] " mention that first. YE Pacific Hurricane 00:38, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Flipped the sentences around. TheAustinMan(Talk·Works) 03:05, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Did the wave show signs of organization in the Atlantic?
Not that I know of, probably not, because it was not mentioned. TheAustinMan(Talk·Works) 03:05, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This is not in the report for the season. TheAustinMan(Talk·Works) 03:05, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This is also not in the report for the season, and thus does not need, or rather, cannot be stated without WP:OR. TheAustinMan(Talk·Works) 03:05, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merged references that were extra and unnecessary.
55 knots is not even an important barometer for tropical cyclone intensification, so sorry, no.
I'll leave this comment and the other intensification change-qualms to an editor who is willing to pick this up, after all, I'm just doing this as a service for the original peer-review requester, who was banned for sockpuppeting. TheAustinMan(Talk·Works) 03:05, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Why? TheAustinMan(Talk·Works) 03:05, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Got it. TheAustinMan(Talk·Works) 03:05, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Linked. TheAustinMan(Talk·Works) 03:05, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "to turned" to "to turn"
Fixed the random suffix. TheAustinMan(Talk·Works) 03:05, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Removed. "Threat" with no substance does not satisfy inclusion into articles. TheAustinMan(Talk·Works) 03:05, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Reworded.
Adjusted.

Also, may I ask why you want to get this featured? It's short and not of much interest. Despite it's intensity, it is unlikely to be brilliant to outside readers, hence strong diffculty to be featured. After all, no one cares about the EPAC. YE Pacific Hurricane 00:38, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The user who requested this has been blocked, so not sure if it should continue. Yellow Evan, since you regularly deal with Pacific tropical cyclones, I'd personally leave it up to your decision if this should stay open more. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 20:58, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any harm in leaving it open. YE Pacific Hurricane 23:21, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]