Wikipedia:Peer review/Timeline of the 2007–08 South Pacific cyclone season/archive1

Timeline of the 2007–08 South Pacific cyclone season

 * 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 April 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 April 2009.

This peer review discussion has been closed. I've listed this article for peer review because after suggestions from people on FLC who thought this article was not ready for FLC. Thanks, Jason Rees (talk) 03:25, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch comments: I am using Timeline of the 1972 Atlantic hurricane season (a WP:FL) as a model article as I am not an expert on meteorology. While the structure follows the model closely, the languiage needs to be cleaned up, so here are some suggestions for improvement. Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). Yours, Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 19:52, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
 * First off this article seems to follow the model timeline very closely. There is a citation to what appears to be a reliable source for every entry, the images are helpful and seem to be free (did not check all of them).
 * There seems to be a lack of detail in the description of the storms here compared to the model - for example of the first 10 entries in the model, 4 have wind speeds, but here there are very few such wind speeds given. My guess is that this is because the monitoring is different (aircraft flying into storms in the Atlantic, satellite monitoring in the Pacific), but could there be a note on this in the lead or somewhere?
 * There is also information on damages in this document - the model timeline mentions the most desctructive storm and the total lives it took and damages done in the lead. This does not.
 * Done Jason Rees (talk) 03:25, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
 * The real problem I have with the article is the language - this needs a good copyedit to clean things up and I think it needs some additions in places to better provide context to the reader - see WP:PCR. Exmaples (not a complete list) follow:
 * I am not really sure what this sentnece means (I understand part of it, I think): The timeline includes information that was not operationally released, meaning information from post-storm reviews by the Joint Typhoon Warning Center (JTWC), and the Fiji Meteorological Service, such as information on a storm that was not operationally warned on. Would it make sense to express it as a positive instead of a negative? Perhaps say something like "In addition to the information made avaiable at the time, this timeline also includes analysis released later by the Joint Typhoon Warning Center (JTWC), and the Fiji Meteorological Service (FMS).'' I am not sure what "such as information on a storm that was not operationally warned on" really means.
 * Plurals do not use an aprostrophe - it should be "dissipations" in This timeline documents all the storm formations, strengthening, weakening, landfalls, extratropical transitions, as well as dissipation's during the 2007–08 South Pacific cyclone season.
 * I would identify who runs the JTWC (since Fiji and New Zealand are identified for the others)
 * This seems misleading: During the year, 16 tropical disturbances, 15 tropical depressions, 4 tropical cyclones and 3 severe tropical cyclones formed. It makes it sound like there were 16 which only became disturbances, plus 15 which were depressions, plus 4 cyclones, etc. Could it be something like "Of the 16 tropical disturbances during the year, 15 became tropical depressions, and 4 of these developed into tropical cyclones, 3 of which were severe tropical cyclones.''
 * The table starts with the "2007–08 Southern Hemisphere tropical cyclone year" - could this be mentioned in the lead for those who do not understand how it is different from the season?
 * Another sentence that just needs to be cleaned up (both twice): Within this basin both RSMC Nadi and TCWC Wellington, both use the Australian Tropical Cyclone Intensity Scale. 
 * One last example: two entries in a row read as follows:
 * 0000 UTC (1200 FST, January 19) – Severe Tropical Cyclone Funa intensifies into a Category 4 severe tropical cyclone.[15]
 * 0600 UTC (1800 FST, January 19) – Severe Tropical Cyclone Funa reaches its peak winds of 95 knots (110 mph, 175 km/h) which makes Funa a Category 4 severe tropical cyclone.[15]
 * Since the first entry already makes it a Category 4 storm, the second entry makes no sense (to me)

Thanks for the review ill get around to the comments later today or tommorrow Jason Rees (talk) 04:23, 1 May 2009 (UTC)