Wikipedia:Peer review/June 2008 tornado outbreak sequence/archive1

June 2008 tornado outbreak sequence 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 October 2008.

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I feel it is nearing FAC status. I'd be pleased to receive any advice or comments as to how this article might be improved Thanks, Rvk41 (talk) 22:18, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Finetooth comments: This seems to be a comprehensive and well-illustrated account. I have a few suggestions for improvement.

It would be good to find a copyeditor to go through the article to find and fix small errors and redundancies. The first sentence of the "July 3" section begins, "Following a series of violent tornado outbreaks that claimed the lives of 26 people in mid–May and 12 people in late–May, a stationary boundary formed across the Midwest separating a seasonally cool airmass covering most of Canada from the very warm and moist airmass over the Southern states and the Gulf of Mexico." I see several problems with this sentence. "Air mass" is two words; "late May" gets no hyphen; "killed" is more direct than "claimed the lives of", and so on. I might suggest, "After a series of tornadoes killed 26 people in mid-May and 12 people in late May, a stationary boundary formed across the Midwest. It separated a seasonally cool air mass over Canada from a very warm, moist air mass over the southern U.S. and the Gulf of Mexico." The next sentence of the "July 3" section includes the phrase, "and on starting on June 3", a clear mistake. The whole article could use a clean-up. If you could choose just one thing to improve the article, a careful copyedit would be it.

The source links in some of the photos, including the lead photo in the infobox and the Omaha damage photo, do not seem to work. It would be good to update them if you can since fact checkers will otherwise have trouble making sure the images meet the WP:V requirement.

Per WP:MOSNUM, when a number starts a sentence, it's customary to spell it out rather than to use digits. Thus the second sentence of the lead should start with "Two hundred seventeen... "

Rainfall amounts in the metric system are usually reported in millimeters rather than centimeters.

WP:MOS says, "Section names should not explicitly refer to the subject of the article, or to higher-level headings, unless doing so is shorter or clearer... " It might be better to say "Reported storms" and "Derechos and other events" rather than repeating the word "tornado" in the section heads.

Thanks for giving the article a peer review, but I am confused on this one. I was hoping you could clarify this for me Finetooth. Rvk41 (talk) 16:03, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Orphan paragraphs such as "Damages from the derecho totaled to $750 million (2008 USD)" in the "June 5 Great Plains derecho" section are usually frowned upon. I'd suggest merging this mini-paragraph with the paragraph above it.

Words like "current" are tricky in an encyclopedia article. "Current President George W. Bush" leaped out at me because it will not be accurate in a few months. In this case, you could fix the problem by deleting the word "current".

This is not a complete review. If you have questions or comments, please post them here. If you find these suggestions helpful, please consider reviewing another article, especially from the backlog. That is where I found this one. Finetooth (talk) 21:34, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]