Wikipedia:Peer review/Meteorological history of Hurricane Dean/archive1

Meteorological history of Hurricane Dean
This peer review discussion has been closed. I've listed this article for peer review because I am attempting to satisfy WP:WIAFA before putting it in an official FA nomination. I have not worked this extensively on any other project, so I am unsure how accurate my assessment of this article is. Besides my inexperience, a fresh set of eyes is always helpful. Right off the bat I have two concerns. Firstly, is the lead too long? Secondly, are the tables/images appropriate? The "Most intense hurricanes" template (near the bottom) probably breaks out of its section on some resolutions.
 * 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 July 2008.
 * 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 July 2008.

Thanks,  Plasticup  T / C  19:03, 2 July 2008 (UTC)


 * My review is not terribly useful, since the biggest problem with the Met. history articles is accessibility (meaning I understand it, but laymen may not).
 * By mid-morning a banding eye had formed, and by the next morning a full eye. This is a problematic statement, as it reads awkwardly, but could also be seen as confusing. What is the difference between a banding eye and a full eye?
 * Watch for consistency in paragraph length. Keeping them in similar size makes reading easier, and not to mention it also looks better. For example, the second paragraph of the first section is just two lines, but the Peak intensity and landfall section is just one paragraph.
 * The alignment of images and tables is a bit awkward, IMO
 * I feel the title for the section "Peak intensity and landfall" is still inappropriate. The previous section is called Caribbean Sea, so logically any material in "Peak intensity and landfall" could fall there. Yet, there is logic in having a separate section. Another issue is that it merely says "landfall", though the hurricane made more than one landfall.
 * More later. Cheers. ♬♩ Hurricanehink ( talk ) 01:08, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

I have merged the "Caribbean Sea" section with the "first landfall" section. I would have liked to keep them separate, but this lets the article flow much better. The one-paragraph section was not working. I have also removed another image and moved the table around. Hopefully the images/tables will no longer break sections on any resolution. The only point you raised which I have not tried to address is the problem of "jargon". I am not sure how I want to deal with that just yet...

Thanks for all the advice.  Plasticup  T / C  22:07, 7 July 2008 (UTC)