Wikipedia:Peer review/2005 Atlantic hurricane season/archive1

2005 Atlantic hurricane season

This article is comprehensive and detailed and has been slaved over by Wikipedia:WikiProject Tropical cyclones for a long time now. We finally have all of the sources necessary for the article to be fully sourced, so this nomination is largely for the purpose of getting some ideas for final changes before an featured article nomination.

Also, as there has been some controversy regarding the format of the article within the WikiProject, it would be really great if some reviewers from outside the Project could give their unbiased opinions on the formatting. Thanks. —Cuiviénen, Monday, 3 April 2006 @ 21:36 (UTC)

To put more context, most of the controversy has been on whether List of 2005 Atlantic hurricane season storms should be merged back into this article, as it was taken out due to the extreme length of the section. That article has already been peer reviewed, and the discussion can be read here. Titoxd^{(?!? - help us)} 21:43, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

• I still feel the economic impacts section is far too short. Several of the storms, especially Dennis, Emily, Katrina, Rita, Stan, and Wilma can produce at least a few more paragraphs. --tomf688^{talk} 00:08, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
  • I've added considerably more about Stan and Rita and a bit about Beta, but Emily, at least, seems to have had no significant economic impact. I'm working on gathering information on Dennis and Wilma right now to add. —Cuiviénen, Wednesday, 5 April 2006 @ 01:18 (UTC)
    • Okay, there isn't really anything to say about Wilma, but I've added a sentence on Dennis agricultural impact. Remember that economic impact is only what sort of effects a storm has on the economy; general destruction is covered elsewhere. Other than oil and agricultural damages, I don't know what there is to cover. —Cuiviénen, Wednesday, 5 April 2006 @ 01:26 (UTC)
      • We wouldn't be having this info shortage if we had just kept them together. That's part of the reasoning behind the pro-merge side of the argument. -- §HurricaneERIC§^Damagesarchive 01:56, 11 April 2006 (UTC)