Wikipedia:Peer review/Hurricane Edith (1963)/archive1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Hurricane Edith (1963)[edit]

Toolbox

* Further information

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I would like some feedback on how the article looks and what I can do to improve it as I have cleared up a few issues brought to my attention by another editor.

Thanks, Bobby122 Contact Me 02:51, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

The article is alright, but there are some things it is missing. First and foremost, I recommend you look at another hurricane featured article, say Hurricane Dog (1950) or Tropical Storm Brenda (1960), something contemporaneous. That way, you can compare your article to another one that has passed the highest quality standards on Wikipedia. Specifically, my biggest concerns are the referencing and the way the information is presented.

  • Referencing - I notice in the meteorological history how you have a large chunk of info cited to one source, but much of that info can't be found in that source. Other parts of the article don't have any references, which is a problem. Every last statement in the article body (excluding the lede) should have a source that follows it (that contained the information). Also, you might want to reconsidering sourcing "Storm Plus", since the website in question cites Wikipedia.
  • Meteorological history - this section is a little awkward, in my opinion. Right now, it reads as if it was written when the storm was active. Compare that with either of the other articles I mentioned. The section should be more on what the tropical cyclone actually did, than what various weather officers said the storm did. For example, instead of saying that ships reported the formation of the depression, just say that the depression formed on X date, based on ship observations. The MH also shouldn't have any watch/warning stuff, since that's more preparation material.
  • The impact section is rather poorly written, no offense. There are many examples of redundant wording, or just awkward phrasing. Try and get a wider variety of sources, other than the NHC storm folder. Also, you should cut down on the Puerto Rico section, since it gets rather long and boring. There are four lines on what happened at a single yacht club. Look at other articles, how they handle lots of info and present it in an interesting manner.

There's lots of good stuff on the storm, just keep at it. --Hurricanehink (talk) 00:31, 11 July 2010 (UTC)