Wikipedia:Peer review/Subtropical Storm One (1982)/archive1

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

Subtropical Storm One (1982)[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review because… this article is my best by far and is getting a Peer Review for any suggestions before FAC. So comment away.


Mitch32contribs 01:02, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

  • A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style. If you would find such a review helpful, please click here. Thanks, APR t 15:38, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Comments
  • YesY done - The infobox says the image was when the storm was located off of New Jersey; it is clear the storm was well south of there at the time
  • YesY done - The lede could be better written. The first sentence is a bit bland (perhaps just say it was the only subtropical cyclone of the season). Also, since the total number of characters in prose in the article is less than 6,000, having just one lede paragraph would suffice.
  • YesY done - The article varies between saying that two and three people were killed by the storm; please fix and clarify.
  • The writing needs to be better. formation by forming (redundant), the Yucatán (Peninsula or Mexican state?), Conditions in the Gulf of Mexico were favorable for tropical storm formation, however westerly wind shear forced the system to not strengthen. - This seems to contradict itself. Wind shear would imply that conditions were not that favorable, and furthermore, forced is a poor word choice, since it is more of a human action. A subtropical depression formed - a location would be good. After crossing the Outer Banks of North Carolina on June 19 - whoa, we just went from gaining SS status over Florida to it jumping to be over NC. Saying that it tracked northeastward, and giving an explanation of why it did so, would be useful. Even though the pressures remained low, the storm expanded and became distorted - this sentence is unclear and vague. minimal - minimal or minimum central pressure?YesY done (Control of tropical cylcones was given to the Canadian Hurricane Centre in 1985.) - Is this important to this article?YesY done In the preps section - including a tornado - there is no parallelism between the words, so either it should be "tornado, severe thunderstorm, and special marine warnings" or clarify what type of warning occurred for each event.YesY done Three people were killed in Florida in association with the subtropical storm with thirteen injuries - this implies that three people died from injuries; clarification is needed.
  • The storm history needs to be organized, and it should go in order of events; thus, the earliest event (the Caribbean disturbance - the article does not specify where it came from nor when it developed) should be listed at the beginning of the section. The first paragraph does not say what the three systems were. Try and organize the second paragraph better to avoid having so many short sentences together.
  • YesY done - Metric units and consistency between units are needed. When the original unit is rounded (inches, for example), the converted unit should be as well; 4 to 6 inches should be read as 4–6 inches (100–150 mm).
  • YesY done - More wikilinking would be useful (Recon, LPA, a link to Florida would be much more useful than linking peninsula). on the morning of June 18 - Due to user preferences, the date needs to be Wikilinked, or, to avoid redundancy, avoid mentioning the date and say the storm made landfall later that day.
  • YesY done - The two paragraphs in the Florida section could be better organized. It appears there are a lot of words, but not a terribly great amount of information. Perhaps merge the paragraphs and rewrite it as one (or, since they are slightly separate meteorologically, rewrite all but the tornado info as one paragraph, then split the tornado).
  • YesY done - Small formatting issues need to be better, particularly with non-breaking spaces
  • NoN not done - I'd like to see some more sources, particularly newspaper sources.
  • Please copyedit the article thoroughly; I do not believe it passes Criterion 1a on the FA criteria. --Hurricanehink (talk) 02:13, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
    • Now the lede is way too short. I merely meant, before, to merge the lede paragraphs. --Hurricanehink (talk) 02:38, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
      • I just noticed a serious problem. The article is not correct! It sources the preliminary report, but it seems to pull information out of the air (or seriously misconstrues it). "The multiple circulations merged creating a strong trough" - the circulations did not merge, and the trough was already there. There are several examples of this problem. --Hurricanehink (talk) 01:43, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

If this were to reach FA, would it be the first subtropical FA? Juliancolton (talk) 23:53, 16 December 2007 (UTC)