Wikipedia:Peer review/Tornado warning/archive1

Tornado warning[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 July 2009.

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because…it seems to be well written, and gives a basic overview of the topic. The only major thing I notice that it lacks is references, but I'm sure there is more that can be done to improve it. Comments as to how it can be improved other than by adding references would be greatly appreciated, and a reassessment would be nice if possible, seeing as I think it has progressed beyond Start-class.

Thanks, Ks0stm ^(T•C) 02:46, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As a side note, the reason that I have requested a peer review rather than a request for feedback is that I am going to find references, and once I add them the article should be well-developed (unless I am misunderstanding what well-developed means, which is quite possible. If I am, or if I should have requested feedback rather than a peer review, feel free to correct me on my talk page). --Ks0stm ^(T•C) 02:54, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch comments: While this is a good beginning, it is not anything more than start class. Here are some suggestions for improvement.

Please see Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Assessment for the basic definitions of the various assessment classes. This has one reference and is a start class at best.
The article seems to be almost exclusively about the US (there is one senctence on Canada). The lead and title do not make this clear. Presumably there are such warnings in other countires too - I think the article should either be renamed to something like "Tornado warning (United States)" or else expanded to be more inclusive. See WP:WEIGHT
As you noted, the biggest probelm with this is a lack of references (though it has other problems too). My rule of thumb is that every quote, every statistic, every extraordinary claim and every paragraph needs a ref. The cut and paste warning especially needs a ref, but so does almost everything else.
Per WP:CITE references come AFTER punctuation, and are usually at the end of a sentence or phrase
Internet refs need URL, title, author if known, publisher and date accessed. {{cite web}} and other cite templates may be helpful. See WP:CITE and WP:V
Article has mostly very short (one or two sentnce) paragraphs which impede the flow - these should be combined with others where possible, or perhaps expanded.
Per WP:HEAD the name of the article should not be repeated in section headers, so "Example of a Tornado Warning" could just be "Examples" (there are two - print and an audio file)
Prose is very uneven - places are good, others need a copyedit

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). Yours, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 13:58, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have completed second to last suggestion and the referencing of the cut and paste warning. As for the US-centric nature of the article, other countries that warn for tornadoes (mainly in Europe and Australia) seem to do so with their version of a severe thunderstorm warning listing one of the threats as tornadoes. I will continue to look for references for the rest of the article, and any more information I can find. --Ks0stm ^(T•C) 17:35, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]