Jump to content

Wikipedia:Peer review/Hurricane Lili/archive1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This peer review discussion has been closed.
Hey, I re-wrote this article about a month ago, and with some help from other editors it passed GA. Now I'm thinking FA and would like to get some input.


Thanks, TheNobleSith (talk) 21:30, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Some comments.
    • There should be a better opening sentence of the article. Check out the openings to Hurricane Fabian, Hurricane Isabel, and Hurricane Juan.
    • The lede should be expanded to 3 paragraphs, if possible
    • Non-breaking spacing is needed throughout the article
    • Unit rounding needs consistency. For example, if the first unit is rounded (50 mph), than the second unit must be rounded (85 km/h).
    • Also, there is redundancy when writing US$2 million (2002 USD), as the USD already implies the US$. The US before the dollar sign should be dropped
    • The storm history could be expanded, given how recent it was. For example, the rapid strengthening and weakening is not explained very well. Perhaps the biggest problem is that the SH relies heavily on the public advisories. The info from the public advisories is not that important, and is probably already in the TCR. A nice and thorough storm history should rely on the discussions: see Hurricane Kyle (2002).
    • The fact that it was forecast to move ashore as a Category 4 hurricane should be mentioned
    • The preparations section should go in order of places affected. Do all of the preps for the Lesser Antilles, then Greater Antilles, then Gulf Coast.
    • Given how much damage there was, it'd be nice to see the Louisiana section expanded a little. Surely some buildings other than the 20 mentioned in Intracoastal City were destroyed in the state. The section could be better organized, too. There are a few options. One would be to have a paragraph for each aspect of the storm; one could be on the winds and the resulting wind damage, while another could be on the waves/surge and any beach erosion. Another option would be to combine all of the meteorological data into the first paragraph, and then list the impact by either area or by type (like one paragraph for agricultural damage, one for transport). Still another option would be to go by each area (coastline, New Orleans area, inland).
    • All in all, decent work, but still needs more before FA is even considered. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 02:32, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Ealdgyth (talk · contribs)

Hope this helps. 16:44, 15 June 2008 (UTC)