Wikipedia:Peer review/Effects of Hurricane Noel in the United States/archive1

Effects of Hurricane Noel in the United States edit

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

A script has been used to generate a semi-orgy for slags sluts and prostitutes they will have fun whilst fucking the living daylights out of each other and licking their pussy till it runs dry automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for October 2008.

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I'd like to get some feedback before I send the article to FAC. Thanks, –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 15:04, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch comments: I do not normally write meteorology articles, but here are some suggestions for improvement. This looks pretty good to me, so here are msotly nitpicks.

The lead should be an accessible and inviting overview of the whole article, so that nothing important should be in the lead only - since it is a summary, it should all be repeated in the body of the article itself. Most of the first paragraph is a history of the Hurricane and is not repeated in the article. Again I am not a storm person, but it seems to me that this should be in the article too - perhaps as a background section. If it is storm style to do this, it at least seems to me that it needs some refs in the lead. Please see WP:LEAD
Missing word? The effects of Hurricane Noel in The United States were widespread, though [they?] in no deaths or significant property damage.
Extra word? Overall, damage in North Carolina totaled to $72,000 (2007 USD).[14]
A few places seem to need dates to provide context - for example the Carolinas and Mid-Atlantic section has no dates that I see, or the first paragraph in New England could use dates too - when did they open shelters, etc?
I would use {{convert}} templates throughout - there are some wrong conversions (2 in is 50 mm or 51 mm, NOT 25 mm\; and I think 4 in would be more like 102 mm than 100 mm).
Images and refs look fine to me although I did not check refs.

Hope this helps. Thanks for your review of Colton Point State Park - I was glad to returen the favor when I saw this at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog. Yours, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 18:51, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the helpful comments. I fixed everything, and added a reference to the lead. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 19:02, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Ealdgyth (talk · contribs)

You said you wanted to know what to work on before taking to FAC, so I looked at the sourcing and referencing with that in mind. I reviewed the article's sources as I would at FAC.
- What makes the following reliable sources?
  - http://www.arrl.org/news/stories/2007/11/06/100/

Hope this helps. Please note that I don't watchlist Peer Reviews I've done. If you have a question about something, you'll have to drop a note on my talk page to get my attention. (My watchlist is already WAY too long, adding peer reviews would make things much worse.) 14:29, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

I removed that source, as I found nothing to prove its reliability. Thanks for the comments, –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 14:51, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]