Wikipedia:Peer review/Tropical Storm Karina (2008)/archive1

Tropical Storm Karina (2008) 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 would like opinions of other editors on this article and to try and get an A-class rating. I know featured is highly unlikely considering the immense effort put out by Juliancolton for the small article, Tropical Storm Erick (2007), to become a FA.

Thanks, Cyclonebiskit (talk) 03:26, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Finetooth comments: All tropical storms are interesting, even one this short-lived. I'm not sure how far you can take the article, but I'm certain it can be improved. Here are a few suggestions.

The "Meteorological history" section seems too long to me. You could improve the article by omitting some of the detail and by using more direct, forceful prose. The prose in the lead and in the final section is more direct and more fun to read.

Here and there you switch verb tenses in a puzzling way. A sentence in the "Meteorological history" section says, "... a tropical cyclone formation alert was issued... ", which is straightforward reporting. The next sentence says, "However, strong upper-level easterly wind shear would limit development, if any were to occur." This jumps from the past tense reporting of the previous sentence to a conjecture about the future. This is odd, because it's possible to continue reporting about what happened, and there's no need to form conjectures about things that didn't happen. I think you are telling two stories; one is the story of the storm, and the other is the story of how the forecasts changed over time. The problem in this particular case might be fixed by changing the second sentence to say, "However, weather forecasters thought that strong upper-level wind shear would limit development." In other words, you need to make clear you are still reporting something that happened in the past and not making a general observation from your own knowledge of tropical storms.

A top-to-bottom copyedit would be a good idea. I see problems such as this one in the lead, "peak intensity of 40 mph (65 km/h) 1000 mbar (hPa; 29.54 inHg)". Something seems to be missing between the wind speed and the barometric pressure.

Numbers bigger than nine are generally written as digits unless they start a sentence. In the lead, "Karina was designated a tropical storm for only eleven hours... " would be "11 hours".

Digits modifying units should be held together by no-break codes to prevent line-wrap from separating the pair on various computer screens. Please see WP:NBSP.

In "Meteorological history", "nearing cooler waters" is used in the second sentence and repeated in the fourth sentence. Saying it just once would be part of the prose tightening I'd recommend throughout this section.

I hope these brief suggestions prove useful. It so, please consider reviewing another article, especially one from the backlog. Finetooth (talk) 22:10, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]