Wikipedia:Peer review/Saffir-Simpson Hurricane Scale/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Saffir Simpson Hurricane Scale[edit]

I've listed this article for peer review mostly because I'm not sure which improvements can be made to get it to FAC. I'm pretty sure it is factually accurate, as the sources used satisfy WP:RS easily, so my questions are more about organization and depth. What would be useful to improve the page?

Thanks,

Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 22:49, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to see a bit more history. For example, this link says that the scale was first used in 1973. I'm also concerned at the inclusion of the pop culture section, particularly since it only deals with two movies on, IMO, ridiculous matters hardly relevant to the article. Just a quick question - is there a standardization to the example storms? Hurricanehink (talk) 01:49, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with you about the pop culture stuff, and about the history. I'll look more into that today. The storms are storms that reached a particular category at peak intensity, and that made landfall while still in that category. For example, having a storm that reached Category 5, but made landfall as only a Category 3 would be confusing. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 02:20, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Um ... as a complete weather dummie, I have no idea what this means.

  • The definition of sustained winds recommended by the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) and used by most weather agencies is that of a 10-minute average at a height of 10 m (33 ft).
    • Why most? Do some others use something else? But more ...
    • Where does height come in? How do you measure height of wind? <grin> Does this mean measured *from* that height as opposed to on the ground? Does the sentence mean something like:
      • Most weather agencies use the definition for sustained winds recommended by the World Meteorological Organization (WMO), measured at a height of 10 m (33 ft) for an average of 10 minutes.

I'm so confused at what the sentence is saying that I don't know how to fix it: is that it? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:43, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

After reading ahead, now I get it and I see the problem. You need to tell weather dummies first (before you start talking about each) that there are three factors in determining storm categories: sustained winds, storm surge and central pressure. Then go on to tell us how each is measured instead of diving in first to those. That is, move up the sentence

  • The five categories are, in order of increasing intensity:

to earlier in the paragraph, and say something like, there are five categories of hurricanes, defined by sustained winds, storm surge and central pressure. Then go on to the part about how they are measured. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:52, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • (ec) The definition isn't measured, the wind is ;) Anyway, the following sentence says the USWS measures on a 1-minute scale rather than a 10-minute scale. "Most weather agencies follow the WMO recommendation and measure sustained wind from a height of 10 m (33 ft) over a 10-minute average. The USWS measures sustained wind over a 1-minute average." ? Gimmetrow 03:54, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yep, the United States is the only country that measures peak wind speeds by measuring the intensity of the wind for 1 minute, then taking the average. Everywhere else uses 10-minute averages. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 04:02, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm done; I did all my queries inline, but it's very nice! Revert anything stupid I've done, but and/or is usually problematic because or covers it. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:46, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Two quick questions:
      • About loss of life. A Category 1 hurricane, Stan, was blamed for 2000 deaths, while a Category 5, Dean, caused about 40, because of the location and speed at which they made landfall. So, how would I treat that?
        • Actually, I had forgotten that it does talk a little bit about that in the History section... Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 05:03, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I added some stuff about the history of the scale to the first paragraph of SSHS#History. Is that one ok? Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 05:02, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • Looks good; mine were the queries of the uninformed :-) Feel free to remove my inline queries that make no sense. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:15, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Let's see:

  • I don't like the way the boxes in the Categories section are of different widths.
  • The lead might be expanded. Mention the lowest and highest values on the scale, for instance. You might also have a single sentence summarizing the criticism section.
  • In Popular culture could probably go—trivia.

Otherwise, it seems quite good. If it were at FAC the prose might be more closely scrutinized. Cheers, Marskell (talk) 10:07, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • Not easy, but I'll see what I can do.
    • Will work on it (there's no maximum value, though).
    • Since you're the second person to say that, I'll nuke it. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 20:45, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Done. A check on whether it renders correctly in different browsers might be nice. I only tested in Firefox/Safari for the Mac. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 21:15, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • &nbsp;s added throughout, except in section titles, where they cause weird side effects. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 00:29, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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 02:42, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You must have gnashed your teeth aligning those category tables but it looks much nicer now. Lead is also good. Marskell (talk) 12:51, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Peer_review/Saffir-Simpson_Hurricane_Scale/archive1&oldid=1078794060"