Wikipedia:Peer review/List of 2005 Atlantic hurricane season storms/archive1

List of 2005 Atlantic hurricane season storms

This article is awaiting the release of one final tropical cyclone report by the National Hurricane Center, that of Hurricane Beta, before it is fully referenced, but otherwise it is a strong candidate for a featured list. For that reason, I am nominating it for peer review to get some comments about the structure and writing style used in the hope that it can become a featured list shortly after Hurricane Beta's report is released. Thank you! —Cuiviénen, Saturday, 18 March 2006 @ 01:55 (UTC)

I like it, but there's a few problems. First, the TOC is too long. Perhaps eliminate the monthly section, IDN. Also, track maps for the depressions is needed. I know it is hard to do, but if its possible, then it should be done. Hurricanehink 02:04, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Would you recommend having no TOC at all? I don't think it is at all desirable to not be able to link directly to a storm, though I suppose the table from 2005 Atlantic hurricane season could be used. I'll get rid of the monthly headings; they bother me, too. Bug jdorje about track maps for the depressions. —Cuiviénen, Saturday, 18 March 2006 @ 02:22 (UTC)

With the monthly headings gone, I would say the TOC is ok now. One of the reasons this article exists is that the TOC in 2005 Atlantic hurricane season was so horrendously long due to the storms, that the storms had to be moved here. One of the main complaints about the parent article, though, is that there aren't any links to individual storms, so they should stay on this article. Titoxd^{(?!? - help us)} 05:53, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

• Where does the 1923 deaths figure come from? Titoxd^{(?!? - help us)} 05:57, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
  • There's an anon that has been updating the numbers as new Katrina deaths come in, and he/she's provided sources in the Katrina article in the past. —Cuiviénen, Sunday, 19 March 2006 @ 00:25 (UTC)
• Also, about the writing style... it sometimes uses short simple sentences too much. I've tried to fix the Allison section, but it still should have a full read and copyedit. Otherwise, there isn't anything wrong with the article... it is stable as soon as the final TCRs come in, it is properly and thoroughly referenced (as soon as those little {{fact}} tags are dealt with) and very detailed. Good choice for a featured list. Titoxd^{(?!? - help us)} 06:17, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
  • You mean Arlene, I hope. I'll try to start going through it and fix the text this evening. —Cuiviénen, Sunday, 19 March 2006 @ 00:25 (UTC)
    • I've tried to rework the Bret and Cindy sections. Could you read through them and tell me if they sound any better? If so, I'll start going through the rest in earnest, but I'm not currently sure that I am successfully fixing the problem. —Cuiviénen, Sunday, 19 March 2006 @ 23:43 (UTC)

It's name should be 2005 Atlantic hurricane season. I refuse to support either of the two seperately, because, when seperate, both articles are incomplete. Neither is a complete article without the other. I have been and always will be against their seperation. Plus, I haven't had time to read through the whole thing, but in the past, I've noticed several figures-from-nowhere: random figures that are stuck in with no official source. -- §HurricaneERIC§^Damagesarchive 23:09, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

• Without rehashing that entire debate again, the summary of this article in 2005 Atlantic hurricane season is 22 KB already, which is longer than the storms sections of complete seasons with decent articles. There is extensive linking between the two articles, and the storms list is larger than the season article itself. The storms section in the season article is quite complete too, and is considered a reasonable compromise by most, so I'm afraid any attempt at merging it will be met with wide resistance. Titoxd^{(?!? - help us)} 23:31, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Without getting into this debate, I would just like to point out that the entire 2005 season article as it currently stands is 50 kb while this list is 64 kb. It does not seem to make sense to merge them together to create an article over 100 kb long that is highly biased towards one section. I also think Titoxd has it right that the current situation is the best possible compromise between extremes. —Cuiviénen, Sunday, 19 March 2006 @ 23:46 (UTC)
    • The Storms section is the meat of the article; it should be weighted more than the other sections. Section biasing is a flawed rule IMO. And I never have seen length as an issue. That's just my opinion. Take it for what it's worth. -- §HurricaneERIC§^Damagesarchive 01:08, 20 March 2006 (UTC)