This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to get a good sense of what others think of this article. I've done substantial work on it, bringing it from a start/stub class article to an A-class article with one attempted FAC. Before I make a second attempt to get this article featured, a full review of it would be very much appreciated (especially since it's such a large article being nearly 48kb in total size). I recently resolved the handful of deadlinks and replaced them with working sites. I also found two more images to add to the article, one of which I've had to upload under the "Non-free media use rationale" since there is no other place I can get pictures of damage and it's been almost five years since the storm struck land. For those who take time out of their day to review this, I really appreciate it.
Thanks, Cyclonebiskit (talk) 16:09, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note to nominator: Due to a shortage of reviewers, peer reviews are being delayed for up to two weeks. It will help to speed things up if you can find time to review one article from the backlog list, which appears on the WP:PR page. Thanks. Brianboulton (talk) 16:46, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Finetooth comments: This appears to be comprehensive and generally well-organized and probably has all the essential ingredients for an FA. However, the prose is a bit loose in places and repetitive in others; the layout needs attention; the fair-use rationale for the wreckage photo is insufficient (in my opinion), and the article could use a few Manual of Style tweaks. I made a few minor proofing changes, and here's a list of specific suggestions for further improvement. None should be really difficult.
Lead
- The lead should include at least a mention of the Aftermath section and probably the Naming section as well. You could add a short fourth paragraph to summarize this material.
- "was a compact and intense tropical cyclone that impacted areas" - "Impacted" is a suspicious verb manufactured from a noun. I know it's used fairly commonly, but I think you'd be better off with "affected".
- "In Honduras and Nicaragua, over 1,000 structures were damaged by the storm, hundreds of which were destroyed." - Move modifier closer to thing modified? Suggestion: "In Honduras and Nicaragua, the storm damaged more than a thousand structures, hundreds of which were destroyed"?
- "However, a Panamanian vessel rescued the men after drifting in the water for several hours." - Clarify by rearranging? The vessel didn't drift. Suggestion: "However, after they drifted in the water for several hours, a Panamanian vessel rescued them."
- "Rains in Honduras totaled to 21.82 in (554 mm) and 6.39 in (162 mm) in Nicaragua." -Would "totaled up to" be more clear than "totaled to" since the rainfall would have been different at different places within these countries?
Meteorological History
- "The wave quickly developed organized convection, indicating that a possible low pressure area had developed along the wave.[2] Continued development... " - Too many repetitions of "develop", I think.
- "The next day, with continued organization, the National Hurricane Center (NHC) stated that a tropical depression could develop in the following day or two." - Delete "with continued organization"? I don't think you need it, and its placement in the sentence makes it seem to modify the NHC rather than the storm.
- "Beta was slowly moving towards the north-northwest... " - Tighten by deleting "towards the"?
- "Deep convection developed near the center of circulation, signifying a developing system." - Tighten by deleting "signifying a developing system"? "Developed" in the first half of the sentence seems sufficient.
- "With the formation of an eye, the chances of rapid intensification reached 62%, and the storm could possibly become a major hurricane—a hurricane with winds of 111 mph (178 km/h) or higher—before landfall." - Suggestion: "The eye's formation increased the chances of rapid intensification to 62 percent, which meant that the storm might become a major hurricane with winds of 111 mph (178 km/h) or higher before landfall."
Preparations
Honduras
- "was cancelled on October 30 after Beta turned towards the southeast" - Tighten by deleting "towards the"?
Impact
- I'd consider removing the subheads in order to solve the layout problems in this section. As it is, File:Beta 27-31oct05 rain.gif displaces an edit button, and the rainfall table and the last image create a text sandwich, at least on my computer screen. Removing the subheads would help solve another problem as well. WP:MOSHEAD says in part, "Section and subsection headings should preferably be unique within a page; otherwise, after editing, the display can arrive at the wrong section (see also below) and the automatic edit summary can be ambiguous." As it is, the article has multiple identical "Honduras" subheads, and so on. This would eliminate one set, and perhaps others could be modified slightly or eliminated to avoid exact repetition.
Nicaragua
- "Six people were confirmed to have been killed by Beta in Nicaragua, one of which was caused by a heart attack." - "One of which" doesn't modify anything in particular. Suggestion: "Beta killed six people, one of whom died from a heart attack, in Nicaragua."
Honduras
- "An estimated 60,483 people were affected by the storm in the country." - Suggestion: "An estimated 60,483 people in Honduras were affected by the storm."
Aftermath
- "A frigate was also deployed to the island, carrying two tons of relief items... " - Metric conversion?
Nicaragua
- "On November 1, the government of Nicaragua announced that they would assist in the reconstruction and repair of 334 for the Miskito Indians." - 334 what?
- "5,020 ten-litre water containers" - Imperial conversion?
- "Another $22,000 was used to supply an aircraft and Bell 204/205 helicopter to assist affected areas." - "A helicopter" or "helicopters"?
- "The Spanish Government also sent $377,188 in aid and to Nicaragua." - Delete "and" or add something missing?
Naming and records
- "Upon being named, it was the first time that an Atlantic hurricane season had produced 24 tropical or subtropical cyclones." - It might be good to expand this paragraph a bit to explain why 24 is connected to the letter beta. Readers unfamiliar with the naming conventions won't have any idea why "Beta" was used.
References
- The newspaper names in the refs should appear in italics. I see several that aren't (La Prensa in citation 56, for example).
Other
- Overlinking. I wouldn't link terms more than once in the lead and perhaps once again on first use in the main text. I particularly notice the repeated linking of places (Nicaragua, Providencia, and others), which I don't think is necessary.
- The tools in the toolbox at the top of this review page find three dead urls in the citations and show that the images lack alt text. Although alt text may not be required for FA at the moment, it's a good idea to add it. WP:ALT has details.
- The "purpose" part of the fair-use rationale for the wreckage photo will not pass muster. "Used for illustrative purposes" could be said of any image. What you have to convincingly state is that the image is necessary for a reader's understanding of the material and that whatever is being conveyed by the image could not be conveyed by words alone. I doubt that this is the actual case.
I hope these suggestions prove helpful. If so, please consider reviewing another article, especially one from the PR backlog at WP:PR. That is where I found this one. I don't generally check corrections after my reviews because it's too time-consuming. Please ping me on my talk page if my comments are unclear or if questions arise. Finetooth (talk) 23:33, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
