Wikipedia:Peer review/Wind/archive1
Wind[edit]
- 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'd like to see what needs to be done to prepare the article for FAC, outside of changing the refs to cite web format. Thanks, Thegreatdr (talk) 20:50, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
- Changes have been made to the caption length, ref placement, headers, and to add nbsps per the automated peer review. Thegreatdr (talk) 11:00, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
- It looks really good overall, especially the amount of referencing and broad coverage. The major concern is that the writing is choppy which can be difficult to avoid with a well referenced article, but the various referenced facts must be blended into cohesive well flowing prose. A few other points: 1) The first scientific description needs one or more reliable references that it is the first. The wording should probably change to first known anyway. 2) The section on windblown soil mentions soil loss from deserts but doesn't mention some of the other side of that effect such as loess and some of the benefits in agriculture that can come from it. 3) Discussion of wind damage is tangentially covered by the discussion of storms and such, but since it really has an effect on modern civilization, it should get more attention. 4) the section 'Effect on flying animal migration' doesn't actually tell about that effect on migrations themselves. Instead it tells of the effect of migrations on weather radar and I didn't understand what the increase in returns meant. The only effect on animals given is to insects which don't migrate as far as I recall. 5) the history and mythology section could stand to be reorganized a bit with the history part possibly expanded to include a wider cultural representation and maybe promoted to be the heading over the mythology and religion part anyway. Those are part of the historical impact of wind on civilization in my mind. Overall though try not to lengthen the article. Find some other things that may be able to be summarized and moved to subarticles so that when you flesh out the needed parts of the article it stays the same overall length. Hope that helps. Particularly the flow of the prose will get you tomatoes thrown at you if it arrives at FAC the way it is. Sorry thats not something I can help with, perhaps directly asking people for some copyediting help once you've done all the reorganization and referencing you want to do would work. - Taxman Talk 13:02, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks for your review. I've made preliminary changes based on most of the points you brought up. Which section, in your opinion, needs the fixed prose-wise to help the flow of the article? Thegreatdr (talk) 02:57, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
- Good improvements I think. The damage section probably needs some information on the economic impact, though that may be hard to get since hurricanes for example cause a lot of the damage from water. That's related though I guess. I don't mean to be harsh, but honestly the prose throughout the article needs improvement for flow, starting from the lead section on down. I especially noticed it in the lead then realized it continued throughout, though less so in places. One sentence. Jumps to another. Related idea without transitions. Again, I don't mean to be mean, but if you want this article to be the best, you've got to know, right? Core topics like this are much harder to write than detailed subtopics in most cases and you've done most of the hard work. - Taxman Talk 14:42, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
- Check out the changes to the second paragraph of the lead and see if those type of changes are what you think would improve the flow of the prose. If so, I'll keep going. Thegreatdr (talk) 19:04, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
- Yes, that's along the right track. Just be careful that if it makes any sections too long, they'll need to be summarized further. But your best bet is still to do your best then talk to a better copyeditor than I for more improvements. - Taxman Talk 03:10, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
- My first full pass at improving the flow of the text within the article has been made. Any other suggestions which could improve its readability? Thegreatdr (talk) 23:12, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
- Yes, that's along the right track. Just be careful that if it makes any sections too long, they'll need to be summarized further. But your best bet is still to do your best then talk to a better copyeditor than I for more improvements. - Taxman Talk 03:10, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
- Check out the changes to the second paragraph of the lead and see if those type of changes are what you think would improve the flow of the prose. If so, I'll keep going. Thegreatdr (talk) 19:04, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
- Good improvements I think. The damage section probably needs some information on the economic impact, though that may be hard to get since hurricanes for example cause a lot of the damage from water. That's related though I guess. I don't mean to be harsh, but honestly the prose throughout the article needs improvement for flow, starting from the lead section on down. I especially noticed it in the lead then realized it continued throughout, though less so in places. One sentence. Jumps to another. Related idea without transitions. Again, I don't mean to be mean, but if you want this article to be the best, you've got to know, right? Core topics like this are much harder to write than detailed subtopics in most cases and you've done most of the hard work. - Taxman Talk 14:42, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks for your review. I've made preliminary changes based on most of the points you brought up. Which section, in your opinion, needs the fixed prose-wise to help the flow of the article? Thegreatdr (talk) 02:57, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
- It is really well-done in many ways, but the biggest issue is the structure. It really needs to be completely rethought. Unfortunately there aren't any similar articles at FA level to pattern off of. After that it seems to me that there is too much fine-grained detail on some thing while at the same time no discussion of Katabatic wind or Sea breeze. I was expecting to read something about such kinds of winds, that are predicted by such features as mountains or shorelines in addition to those predicted by latitude.--BirgitteSB 18:10, 3 June 2009 (UTC)