Wikipedia:Peer review/List of tropical cyclone records/archive1

List of tropical cyclone records[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

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 December 2008.

This peer review discussion has been closed.
What is this list missing besides an intro? Thanks, Nergaal (talk) 05:31, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe more records. There was talk of getting rid of List of tropical cyclones, and moving the content to List of tropical cyclone records. If that were the case, then some changes would have to be made. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 05:44, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Which ones? The only ones that are left out seem to be those that refer to US. For example I wanted to add the one with most damages, but I think there is nothing out there that refers to stuff outside US. Nergaal (talk) 06:01, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Costliest, most rainfall produced, closest to the equator. Those are a few notable ones which should be included, but I wouldn't stop there. My other major concern is the validity of the records. There is a big debate over whether Marco should be the smallest on record, since the source provided specifies the record is small, and that Marco's record was only for the Atlantic Ocean. Also the most rapid intensification is debated. Of course, people outside of the hurricane community wouldn't know that, but the issues still exist. Are you planning taking it to FL? ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 05:29, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was considering it, but I want to know weather it is possible for me to do that. About the rainfall: over what period should the record(s) be (I found at least 5 classes)? And about the costliest one, is it enough to say that it was the 1926 Great Miami Hurricane - because I cannot find any source saying anything about costs outside US? Nergaal (talk) 05:43, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that's the thing. A lot of those records have levels to them, meaning a basic table might not be the best format. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 05:57, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]