Wikipedia:Peer review/Hurricane Alma (1996)/archive1

Hurricane Alma (1996)

 * 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 June 2009.
 * 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 June 2009.

This peer review discussion has been closed. I've listed this article for peer review because I want to get this to GA.

Thanks, Leave Message ,Yellow Evan home, User:Yellow Evan/Sandbox 14:48, 8 June 2009 (UTC)


 * As a significant contributor to this article, I can say this still needs quite a bit of work. For example, the discussions need to be incorporated into the met. history. – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 14:50, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Finetooth comments: Since the article is undergoing a major revamping, I'll just make a few brief comments.


 * What you have reads well in most places.


 * You might want to express pressures in inches of mercury as well as millibars throughout the article.


 * I see typos here and there in the article and other proofing mistakes such as "Alma had serve impact in Mexico".


 * Some of the en dashes such as the one in "mid–level trough" should be hyphens.


 * WP:MOSNUM suggests that generally the main units of measurement should be spelled out and the secondary units abbreviated. Thus 19.09 in (485 mm) should be 19.09 in. I like using the convert template because it spells, abbreviates, and calculates automatically.


 * Abbreviations like GFDL should in most cases be spelled out and possibly linked on first use. GFDL often means the Gnu Free Documentation License but not here.


 * Why is the damage from the hurricane unknown?

I hope this helps. If so, please consider reviewing another article, especially one from the PR backlog. That is where I found this one. Finetooth (talk) 22:51, 17 June 2009 (UTC)