Wikipedia:Peer review/Tornado/archive2

Tornado
This peer review discussion has been closed. I've listed this article for peer review because, since its promotion to FA (Old Edit, Diff), it has expanded by 30%, several sections were added, and the "definitions" section has been completely redone. I personally see no problems with the article (thus I have not listed it at Featured Article Review, but was hoping for a few fresh sets of eyes.
 * Previous peer review

Thank you kindly,  Running On  Brains  09:52, 22 May 2008 (UTC)


 * A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style. If you would find such a review helpful, please click here. Thanks, APR t 01:31, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

In light of the reason for peer reviewing, I'm going to look at this as I would an article up at FAR. The first thing I noticed is that there are a lot of images. I mean, they are great (and I have a love of looking at tornado pictures), but in the case of this article, I think a gallery might something to consider for some of the many example pictures. As it is now, there are so many pictures the scientific ones feel lost and it seems more like a page of "oh, cool tornado pictures" than providing some key illustrations. The Types section includes several examples, however many have their own articles so perhaps those images could go in the gallery? Minor note: the first image in that section has a red link to CSDed article.
 * Comments from

Looking at one of the core criteria for FA, referencing, the article is failing as there is quite a bit of unsourced material. Here is a specific list of the ones I've found:


 * Definitions - under "Condensation funnel", the last sentence of the first paragraph
 * Types
 * "Multiple vortex tornado", entire paragraph
 * "Waterspout"'s paragraph and second bulleted item
 * "Gustnado", last two sentences
 * "Winter Waterspout", entire paragraph
 * "Steam devil", entire paragraph
 * "Cold air vortex", second sentence
 * Characteristics
 * "Shapes", first paragraph and last sentence of the second paragraph
 * "Appearance", last sentence of paragraph three
 * "Sound and seismology", entire first paragraph
 * "Electromagnetic, lightning, and other effects", last sentence of the second paragraph, entire third paragraph
 * Life Cycle
 * "Supercell relationship", all but one sentence
 * "Formation", entire paragraph
 * "Maturity", entire paragraph
 * "Demise", second paragraph
 * Intensity and damage, entire first paragraph
 * Climatology, last sentence of the first paragraph, most of fourth paragraph (also, seems a bit long to be a summary of a main article?)
 * Prediction, first paragraph
 * "United Kingdom", entire section
 * "United States", entire section
 * "Other areas", entire section
 * Detection, first paragraph
 * "Storm spotting", first and last paragraphs, last sentence of paragraph 3
 * "Radar", first paragraph
 * Safety, second paragraph
 * Continuing research, vast majority of the section, with only two sentences in the first paragraph cited, and the short third paragraph sourced

As a note, I did not review the quality of the references that are used, only their existance. Some other quick things I noticed:


 * There are several referenced statements in the lead, when generally such statements should be referenced and expanded on in the article while the lead summaries the article. For such a lengthy article, the lead seems to be very short and I believe it fails WP:LEAD.
 * I spotted a few other MoS issues, like refs inside punctuation, or stepping "out of article" in "Myths and misconceptions" with the parenthetical see also. It is also nice when multiple refs are in numerical order.
 * The See also needs cleaning out to remove those items wikified within the article
 * ELs really need cutting down; there seems to be quite a few unnecessary links there

If this article were brought to FAR, I would sadly have to support delisting due to the referencing issues. As a whole, it seems to still be in decent shape, especially for such a popular topic, so I'm hopeful that these issues can be fixed fairly quickly. I'd also recommend having it re-copyedited, particularly the new additions, which would also catch some of those MoS issues mentioned above. I hope this helps some and feel free to reply here if there are any questions or anything needs clarifying. -- Collectonian  (talk · contribs) 01:42, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the suggestions, I'll be moving down the list in the days ahead to make fixes. - Running On  Brains  05:28, 28 May 2008 (UTC)