Wikipedia:Peer review/1989 Pacific hurricane season/archive1

1989 Pacific hurricane season

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because i do nto know how much info on each storm should be. I had one paragraph, but it was reverted. I trimmed the sections down, but there seemed to be no good reason to remvone info.

Thanks, Leave Message, Yellow Evan home

For now, I would expand the sections on TD 22-E and 23-E atleast past the one sentence it is now. --Yueof theNorth 20:59, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Finetooth comments: It appears to me that you have collected all or at least most of the basic data and that the main remaining problems have to do with organization and layout. Here are some suggestions for further improvement, including ideas about the short subsections.

• It's often useful to look at featured articles to see how other editors have handled similar problems. Quite a few hurricane-season articles can be found at WP:FA#Geology, geophysics and meteorology. Just glancing at a couple of them, I see that the editors of 1994 Atlantic hurricane season have grouped the storms by multi-monthly categories. The article 1995 Pacific hurricane season, on the other hand, uses a subsection for each storm, and most subsections consist of two paragraphs. No single organizational formula fits every article, but you can probably find a suitable one among the FAs.

• I'd suggest grouping at least some of the shorter storms while maintaining chronological order. For example, Tropical Depression Four-E and Tropical Depression Five-E could be combined under a single subhead, "Tropical depressions Four-E and Five-E" or something like that. This would solve the short-section problem and would give you room to make the illustrations fit properly within a single section. Section overlap of images is layout no-no, best avoided if possible. Further down in the article, maybe Seven-E, Erick, and Flossie could be combined. And so on.

• The cyclone symbol, File:Temporary cyclone north.svg, doesn't look good to me. It's too big in relation to the other images, and it adds no information not already made clear by the text.

• To keep from overwhelming the page with images, you might consider removing some or all of the illustrations for the tropical depressions.

• Since you use miles for Tropical Storm Adolph, you should use miles throughout rather than nautical miles, as with Tropical Storm Juliette. I believe miles is the conventional measure for hurricane articles; most readers won't know how long a nautical mile might be. If you think it important to include nautical miles, you could use both as well as kilometers.

The citations should follow a consistent formatting. Some of the author names are italicized but shouldn't be. Citation 31 starts with "Gross" before the date and title, whereas citation 32 puts Gross in italics after the title. The article looks pretty clean, but I'd suggest a top-to-bottom proofreading to catch and fix all the little things like this.

Other

• The alt-text checker in the toolbox at the top of this page shows that all of the images need alt texr, meant for readers who can't see the images. WP:ALT has details.
• The link-checker tool finds five dead links in the citation urls. These should all be repaired or replaced.

I hope these few suggestions prove helpful. If so, please consider reviewing another article, especially one from the PR backlog at WP:PR. That is where I found this one. Finetooth (talk) 22:25, 22 May 2010 (UTC)