Wikipedia:Peer review/Cyclone Rewa/archive1

Cyclone Rewa
This peer review discussion has been closed. I've listed this article for peer review because… i want Rewa to become a Featured article but have been advised to go down the route of peer review first Thanks, Jason Rees (talk) 07:33, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Finetooth comments: This has a lot of information about the storm, but the prose needs considerable work to reach FA standards. In addition, the article might need an "Aftermath" section to be considered comprehensive. Here are a few suggestions for improvement.


 * Should the article include an "Aftermath" section? I see that many FA storm articles include follow-up information that might be needed to meet the FA requirement that the article be comprehensive. A complete list of FA storm articles is at WP:FA. See Cyclone Waka, for example.
 * I dont think that there is anything around for an aftermath section, one of the problems is that Queensland was affected by a much more significant flood about 10 days after.Jason Rees (talk) 14:12, 31 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Would it be possible to add another couple of images? Any images of storm damage?
 * It might be possible to add a few images of the storm itself, but i doubt there will be any images of the damage available under a suitable license.Jason Rees (talk) 14:12, 31 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Some of the paragraphs, such as the last paragraph of the "Meteorological history" section and the entire "Australia" subsection, are much too long for readability. Try breaking them into somewhat smaller paragraphs. You want to give the readers a place to rest their eyes now and again and not get lost in a sea of type. It shouldn't be hard to find logical break points.
 * Done.Jason Rees (talk) 23:28, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Lead
 * "Severe Tropical Cyclone Rewa affected six countries and killed 22 people on its 28-day journey across the South Pacific Ocean." - I would modify this by adding the years; i.e., "Severe Tropical Cyclone Rewa affected six countries and killed 22 people on its 28-day journey across the South Pacific Ocean in 1993–94."
 * Done.Jason Rees (talk) 23:28, 12 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Double-check the links in the lead to eliminate overlinking. For example, Solomon Islands and New Caledonia are linked twice. My rule of thumb is to link something no more than once in the lead and no more than once in the main text.
 * Done.Jason Rees (talk) 23:28, 12 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Link the first use of a special term rather than a later use. For example, Papua New Guinea should be linked on first use in the second paragraph rather than on second use in the third paragraph. Ditto for New Zealand. There might be others.
 * Done.Jason Rees (talk) 23:28, 12 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Link Mackay, Queensland?
 * Done.Jason Rees (talk) 23:28, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Meteorological history
 * "Early on 26 December... " - I would add the year here too even though it's in the infobox.


 * "Later that day the JTWC reported that the depression had intensified into tropical storm 05P before TCWC Nadi reported that the system had developed into a Category 1 tropical cyclone, and named it Rewa, while it was located about 500 km (310 mi) to the south-east of Honiara on the Solomon Island of Guadalcanal." - This might be slightly too complicated for one sentence. Who named it Rewa, the JTWC or TCWC Nadi?


 * "During that day, Rewa moved out of the South Pacific basin and into the Australian region, with the Bureau of Meteorology's Brisbane tropical cyclone warning centre taking responsibility for the system." - The "with plus -ing" construction is usually weaker than various alternatives. Suggestion: "During that day, Rewa moved out of the South Pacific basin and into the Australian region, where the Bureau of Meteorology's Brisbane tropical cyclone warning centre took responsibility for tracking the system."


 * "Throughout 31 December and 1 January, Rewa slowly intensified further before it started to rapidly deepen further early on 2 January, as it continued to move towards the south-south-east." - Unnecessarily wordy. Suggestion: "Throughout 31 December and 1 January, Rewa slowly intensified before rapidly deepening early on 2 January as the storm continued south-south-east."


 * "Both agencies then reported later that day... " - I had a writing teacher who used to pounce on the word "then" when used in this way. "When else"? he would ask. His point was that "then" is often redundant in a chronological narrative. You can often delete it with no ill effect. There's a similar "then" two sentences before this one in the phrase "TCWC Brisbane then reported early... " I suggest deleting these and tracking down any similar ones and deleting them.


 * "Both agencies then reported later that day at 1800 UTC that Rewa had reached its peak intensity, with the JTWC reporting that Rewa had peaked with 1-minute windspeeds of 230 km/h (145 mph), equivalent to a Category 4 tropical cyclone on the SSHS." - Here's another "with plus -ing". A better variant would be this: "Both agencies reported at 1800 UTC that Rewa had reached peak intensity. The JTWC said that Rewa had achieved one-minute wind speeds of 230 km/h (145 mph), equivalent to a Category 4 tropical cyclone on the SSHS." To improve the prose in this article, it would be good to hunt down all the "with plus -ing" sentences and recast them.


 * "However during a subsequent reanalysis of the data... " - Delete "subsequent"?
 * Deleted.Jason Rees (talk) 14:12, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

New Guinea
 * "Cyclone Rewa affected Papua New Guinea, on two separate occasions while it was active, with the cyclone first affecting the country between 28 December and 1 January, before grazing the archipelago between 12 and 14 January.[16][5] Ahead of Rewa affecting the archipelago, TCWC Port Moresby issued cyclone alerts for various parts including Sudest, Rossel and Samarai islands, while authorities urged people not to go to beaches.[10][17] As it affected the archipelago, Rewa brought heavy rainfall, high seas, and wind gusts of up to 100 km/h (60 mph) to parts of the archipelago... " - Here and in other places in the article, the language is too repetitive.

Other
 * The article has one dab found by the dab tool at the top of this page. It is here.

I hope these suggestions prove helpful. If so, please consider commenting on any other article at WP:PR. I don't usually watch the PR archives or make follow-up comments. If my suggestions are unclear, please ping me on my talk page. Finetooth (talk) 00:30, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Please make sure that the existing text includes no copyright violations, plagiarism, or close paraphrasing. For more information on this please see Wikipedia_Signpost/2009-04-13/Dispatches. (This is a general warning given in view of previous problems that have risen over copyvios.)

Comment - Agree that the prose isn't up to standard yet. By the way, what English is used (or should be used) here?  Auree   ★  15:40, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I would guess that it has to be in Australian English but i dont see that it really matters since as Sp33dyphil said here: "There isn't much difference between Australian and British English, except for a drop in sophistication in normal talking and several different words. But, the latter do not apply to meteorology, so I wouldn't/can't change anything in the article to suit your perceived need". Ps I am away for most of the weekend so i will tackle the comments on here early next week.Jason Rees (talk) 17:35, 3 February 2012 (UTC)