Wikipedia:Peer review/Tropical Storm Grace (2009)/archive1

Tropical Storm Grace (2009)
This peer review discussion has been closed. I've listed this article for peer review because I think it is close to meeting the criteria for Featured Article candidate.

Thanks, TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk) 20:36, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Did you address all of the comments from the previous FAC? --♫ Hurricanehink ( talk ) 21:16, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Comments - I'm not quite sure it's ready yet. A glance at the lede revealed a number of problems: In all, quite a few problems in the lede alone. Auree   ★  22:24, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't think 9 named storms for a season is "inactive;" it's only slightly below average, so I'd leave it out.
 * I would replace "the system" with "Grace" in the second sentence to compromise the lack of a name mention in the following sentences.
 * Attaining a peak intensity of 65 mph (100 km/h), the formation of an eye-like feature was noted on satellite imagery, – Did the formation of an eye-like feature attain a peak intensity of 65 mph (100 km/h)? I'd tighten to "It strengthened to attain peak sustained winds of 65 mph (100 km/h) and developed an eye-like feature, although [...]"
 * When did it actually merge? I think it's worth a mention in the lede. Something like "The storm lost its tropical characteristics on x date, though its remnants persisted for most of October 6 before dissipating over England" would also work.
 * I also notice there isn't a single mention of its motion throughout the entire lede.
 * Although not solely related to the cyclone, heavy rainfall in Portugal led to some street flooding – The "Although" here is ungrammatical; either change into "Albeit" or (preferably) rewrite the sentence.
 * Get rid of the "approaching", write out inches, and remove the wikilinks from both units.
 * I'd remove the "However, no damage occurred," since it's not really necessary to mention what a storm didn't do in the lede.

Ok let's see if I did this right - That was pretty much what I found, it seems pretty good overall, and I think I failed at this review. atomic 77  32  03:21, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
 * The first sentence of the MH is bothering me a bit, but that's just my opinion.
 * As is the first sentence of the third paragraph... Probably restructure that sentence.
 * Also, when you're mentioning the merging of Grace with a frontal system it might be better to mention what happened before merging, before you mention the merging itself.