Wikipedia:Peer review/Tropical cyclone naming/archive1

===Tropical cyclone naming=== This peer review discussion has been closed. I've listed this article for peer review because… i want to get some feedback on what needs to be done to this article to get it upto a either GA or FA quality. Thanks, Jason Rees (talk) 02:48, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

It is still open and located at Peer review/Tropical cyclone naming/archive1. Brianboulton comments: This is by way of a prose review, since I'm sure the technical information is OK. A couple of general points first:- Specific issues: the prose requires a considerable amount of attention if the article is to reach GA or FA. I have read in detail to the end of the Atlantic section and found a large number of required fixes:- I will try to get to the rest in the next few days. Brianboulton (talk) 20:53, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Too many very short level-3 subsections, particularly in the latter parts of the article, tend to obstruct the general flow of prose. "Renaming of tropical cyclones" could be written as a single undivided section without difficulty.
 * I believe that there is still a WP stricture against the use of "whilst" instead of "while".
 * I dont know anything about any restrictions on the word whilst but ill change all instances of the word to while if its whats preferred by the community.Jason Rees (talk) 22:37, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Lead
 * The opening is verbose: "named since 1945 and are named..." and "for a variety of reasons. These reasons include..." Needs smoothing.
 * The second sentence is not grammatical: "...to make ease of communications between forecasters and the general public when issuing forecasts, watches, and warnings". It is the forecasters, not the general public, who are issuing the forecasts etc., so: "...to facilitate communications between forecasters and the general public when forecasts, watches, and warnings are issued".
 * FixedJason Rees (talk) 22:37, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Three successive citations to the same source is not require; the final [1] will cover everything up to that point.
 * FixedJason Rees (talk) 22:37, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
 * "Names are drawn in order from predetermined lists and are usually assigned to tropical cyclones with one, three or ten minute windspeeds of more than 65 km/h (40 mph)." Can you clarify; does this mean that cyclones are named after achieving a windspeed of 65 km/h either for one, three or ten minutes depending in which area it originates? If this is so, the prose needs to say this specifically.
 * Yep but there are some TCs that are named whilst they are tropical depressions.Jason Rees (talk) 22:37, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
 * In the final sentence, what does "standards vary" refer to? I'm afraid the whole sentence left me somewhat baffled.
 * Standards vary means just that if a tropical cyclone forms in the WPAC then it will be named twice, whilst in the SHEM some cyclones that reach the required windspeeds wont be named.Jason Rees (talk) 22:37, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
 * History of tropical cyclone naming
 * The preamble more or less duplicates a sentence that has just been read in the lead. Is there a chance that you could develop it a bit, e.g. by giving examples of the dodgy politicians who had cyclones named after them? If no development is intended, I suggest you remove this preamble and cite the sentence in the lead.
 * I dont know if theres any records available of which politicians had cyclones named after them. ill have a go at expanding it but im not sure if there is anything to expand it with.Jason Rees (talk) 22:37, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Atlantic
 * "Beginning in..." and "started to..." in the same sentence is awkward prose. Also, "a tropical storm" should be pluralised - "tropical storms". You could replace "Beginning in" with "From". Or you could flip the whole sentence into a more active voice: "From 1950 the United States Weather Bureau (USWB) began to assign names to tropical cyclones that were judged to have intensified into tropical storms." This has the advantage of clarifying who assigned the names.
 * Fixed.Jason Rees (talk) 23:02, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
 * "By 1952 a new phonetic alphabet had been developed which led to confusion as some parties wanted to use the newer phonetic alphabet." Needs rewording without the clunking repetition
 * Sentences should not begin with "So..." in encyclopedic English
 * "women names"? Do you mean "women's names"? More to the point, why was this particular decision taken? Why not men's names, animal names, etc.?
 * The only reason ive come across in my research is because hurricanes are like women in that they were erratic and unpredictable but im not sure its appropriate for wikipedia since its a sexist reason.Jason Rees (talk) 22:50, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Continuing prose and punctuation problems in the rest of this section. I can't list them all, but "The new set of names were developed and were used..." - "were" should be "was" in each case; the next sentence (beginning "For each season..." needs repunctuating and splitting); "made the decision to relinquish" → "decided to relinquish" (the sentence that contains this phrase spins on endlessly and has to be split); "would start to be used in 1979" → "would be used from 1879".
 * I think ive caught everything that youve written up so far, if not shout.Jason Rees (talk) 01:48, 17 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Further comment: It is clear that a lot of research has gone into this project, but at present it is rather let down by the prose. I have made an effort to read the rest of the article, but in all honesty I am finding it very difficult. There is repetition, poor phrasing and wayward punctuation in nearly every section. I have rectified a few instances, but there are just too many; a few examples (not a full listing):-


 * "The WMO selected six lists of names which contained male names and rotated every six years". Suggest: "The WMO prepared six lists of mixed male and female names, to be used on a six-years rotation basis"
 * "However unlike in the Atlantic basin the contingency plan has never had to be used, although in 1985 to avoid using the contingency plan, the letters X, Y, and Z were added to the lists."
 * "drafted with the intent being to use" - needs rephrasing
 * "In 1945, the United States armed services, publicly adopted a list of names that they would name tropical depressions that intensified into tropical storms within the western Pacific."
 * "With the first name assigned to Cyclone Onil which developed over the Arabian Sea in late September 2004 with the name assigned by the India Meteorological Department".
 * "Over the years, there have been various selection processes for selecting the names, that will be assigned to tropical/subtropical storms during the season."
 * "1980's and 1990's"
 * "Until the WMO took over the naming, all off the names selected were female..."

I suggest you concentrate on improving the prose throughout, and then get a fresh pair of eyes to look over it and maybe make further suggestions for improvement. However factually accurate an article is, unless the prose is half-way engaging, it is unlikely to be read. I'm afraid I don't have any more time to give to it, but I hope my suggestions have been helpful. Brianboulton (talk) 23:19, 20 October 2010 (UTC)