This article is within the scope of WikiProject Meteorology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Meteorology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Non-tropical storms, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of worldwide non-tropical storm events on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Germany, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Germany on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
This article was very well written, but could use improvement in a few areas. It was a very interesting and informative article. The main paragraph regarding the events included a lot of solid information and gave a very descriptive summary of what had happened. I believe to better that paragraph you could involve more references concerning the flood. The pictures add a nice touch to the article and for me they help me with imagery. As for the first paragraph about the causes it is very brief, and although it gives us the basic idea about what caused the flood, I think more information could be added to give the readers a better understanding about how substantial this disaster was and how it occurred. You could have also mentioned the geography of Germany and where exactly Hamburg is to give the reader a little bit of a better understanding where and how this area was hit. As for the paragraph about the aftermath, it’s very brief and could definitely be added to. It gives a general idea but I think that doing a compare and contrast as to how Germany fixed these dykes and how their emergency plans were bettered as opposed to how they were when the flood happened. The few references used were quite helpful and enlightening but to better prove some of the information used, the more references the better. The one thing that I was worried about is the death toll numbers. In your brief introduction you say that 315 people died but in the box on the right hand side of the screen it says it totalled 347. It might just be a mistake but it’s something worth looking at and making sure your information is valid. Another good thing about this article is that it is not biased in any way and your point of view was left out of it. That’s an important aspect in these Wikipedia articles, as well as the following. Your language was appropriate and you did not use any terms that didn’t relate to the subject, and you used the proper grammar. I could not locate any mistakes regarding the grammar or punctuation in this article. All in your entire article was very well-written and I have learned a lot about this subject. Even though it is a fairly short article you obviously did some research to compile this interesting information and applied it in an appropriate manner. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tanissteinbach (talk • contribs) 22:00, 27 September 2012 (UTC)