Wikipedia:Peer review/Hurricane Alma (1996)/archive1

Hurricane Alma (1996)[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for June 2009.

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I want to get this to GA.

Thanks, Leave Message ,Yellow Evan home , User:Yellow Evan/Sandbox 14:48, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As a significant contributor to this article, I can say this still needs quite a bit of work. For example, the discussions need to be incorporated into the met. history. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 14:50, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Finetooth comments: Since the article is undergoing a major revamping, I'll just make a few brief comments.

What you have reads well in most places.

You might want to express pressures in inches of mercury as well as millibars throughout the article.

I see typos here and there in the article and other proofing mistakes such as "Alma had serve impact in Mexico".

Some of the en dashes such as the one in "mid–level trough" should be hyphens.

WP:MOSNUM suggests that generally the main units of measurement should be spelled out and the secondary units abbreviated. Thus 19.09 in (485 mm) should be 19.09 inches (485 mm). I like using the {{convert}} template because it spells, abbreviates, and calculates automatically.

Abbreviations like GFDL should in most cases be spelled out and possibly linked on first use. GFDL often means the Gnu Free Documentation License but not here.

Why is the damage from the hurricane unknown?

I hope this helps. If so, please consider reviewing another article, especially one from the PR backlog. That is where I found this one. Finetooth (talk) 22:51, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]