This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I rewrote this a while ago, and after a successful GA review I would like to know what needs to be done to the article before an FAC run.
Ah, another good offering from the hard-working Hurricane folks. Alrighty, getting started:
Lead: "2 indirect deaths" and "7 people" but "Four more hurricanes" - be consistent with spelling out numbers.
Seasonal forecasts: Looking through the previous promoted articles in the Atlantic series, the only other one to include a preface to the subsections was the
2005 Atlantic hurricane season, which in addition included a summary of the number of forecasts released by each party. I don't really have an opinion one way or the other on whether such a summary would improve the article, I just thought I'd mention it as a possible expansion.
Forecasting uncertainty: The first sentence seems to repeat itself a bit.
Forecasting uncertainty: "Also, for some of the same factors..., several of the tropical cyclones in the season were forecasted with error." - difficult to parse.
Accumulated Cyclone Energy (ACE) rating - section lacks references.
Overall: Very good article. High readability, good depth, clearly cited, and with several illustrative images. Most of the above comments are just nit-picky details, and once they're fixed I don't see any major problems standing in the way of an FAC. Good luck!
GeeJo(t)⁄(c) •
18:54, 20 April 2008 (UTC)reply
Thank you for the helpful comments. The issue about the lack of sources in the ACE section is probably unfixable, as you will see with other hurricane season FAs, are generally unsourced, as there are no sources. Other than that, I fixed pretty much everything. Thanks!
JuliancoltonTropicalCyclone00:04, 21 April 2008 (UTC)reply