Wikipedia:Peer review/Climate of Launceston, Tasmania/archive1

Climate of Launceston, Tasmania

• 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 May 2009.

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I'm intending to take this article to GAN

Thanks, Aaroncrick^{(Tassie Boy talk)} 05:05, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Finetooth comments:

Lead

• The existing lead is nearly an exact copy of the climate section of the Launceston, Tasmania, article, and that seems to be the main reason why it is not an ideal lead. For example, the existing lead mentions the fog-bound airport, but the airport is not mentioned in the main sections of the article. Entirely missing from the existing lead is any mention of the 2009 heat wave. My suggestion would be to move some of the details from the lead into the appropriate lower sections and then to re-write the lead.
• The first word in the article links to a disambiguation page.
• "The most rain Launceston received in a year was 829.6 millimetres (32.66 in) in 1992, with 2006 being the driest year when just 394.8 millimetres (15.54 in) fell." - Sometimes "with" is not an ideal connector. Suggestion: "The wettest year in Launceston was 1992, when the city received 829.6 millimetres (32.66 in) of rain. The driest was 2006, at 394.8 millimetres (15.54 in)." Lots of other ways of saying this are possible.

Precipitation

• "Cold fronts in winter account for much of this precipitation, with mountains surrounding Launceston regularly receiving snow in autumn, winter and spring. - I think this "with" would work better if replaced by "and". Suggestion: "... and mountains surrounding Launceston regularly receive snow in autumn, winter and spring."
• The image of Cataract Gorge is good, but how is it related to Launceston? Where is the gorge in relation to the city? Does any stream flow through Launceston? If so, is the stream depicted the one that floods the city? More detail about historic floods would be interesting and would expand this short section.
• Do the hills and mountains have names? How high are they?

Summer

• Did the tornado cause damage? Was anyone hurt?

Some other thoughts

• Generally, the metric numbers should be rounded to the same decimal place as the imperial numbers. Thus, instead of "12.2 °C (54 °F)", it would be more common to see either the C number rounded to the nearest whole number or, if tenths of a degree are important, the F number expressed to the nearest tenth.
• The tables might be more readable if fewer words were in bold type. Bolding loses its attention-getting effect if a lot of things appear in bold.
• All metric measurements should be given in imperial units also. "Estimates suggest the tornado had wind speeds of between 200 and 250 km/hr", for example, needs a conversion. A handy way to do these is by using the {{convert}} template, which does the math and adds the correct words and abbreviations. You can add a parameter for rounding to the accuracy you want. A complete list of expressions like "km/h" that the template can handle are listed at Template:Convert/list of units.
• Statistics about wind might be interesting. Ditto for humidity. Ditto for fog. Ditto for cloudy vs. sunny days.
• Most of the information about the heat wave isn't specific to Launceston. The material is interesting and provides a good background, but perhaps something specific could be added from local newspaper accounts. Were people driven outdoors to sleep? Did the demand for electricity for air conditioning cause problems? Did the heat cause any fatalities in or near the city? Did any bushfires affect Launceston? Was the air ever filled with smoke from fires?

Images

• It wouldn't hurt to add a link to the base map (locator map) used for Image:09 Aus heatwave map.PNG. That would make it easier for fact-checkers to verify that the base map is in the public domain.

If you find these few suggestions helpful, please consider reviewing another article, especially one from the PR backlog. That is where I found this one. Finetooth (talk) 21:05, 2 June 2009 (UTC)