Wikipedia:Peer review/2013 North India floods/archive1

2013 North India floods

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because the article in general can be improved further and also because it is a highly notable article.

Thanks, Suresh 5 (talk) 09:45, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'll list some specific comments below. Overall, the flow needs to be made more coherent. Right now there are a lot of facts and figures thrown in haphazardly through the article. The intro should give a better idea of the overall situation. Particularly the Death and Damage section needs to be given a more logical structure, starting with some overall information, and then listing specifics. As it is it jumps around and it is very confusing. Also, some attempt should be made to be more comprehensive. Right now it seems that certain areas are given more attention than others. Overall, has a lot of potential with some care to not get bogged down in the details. Please contact me if you have any questions. Peregrine981 (talk) 10:50, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There are certain random numbers and names that are bolded in the text, "5700", "Gobindghat". They should not be.
Ideally the title of the article should be used in the first sentence and bolded.
"5,700 people were "presumed dead." [3] This total included 934 local residents" - it is not clear why the distinction has been made, and most of all why local residents is so low. It should be made clear before this sentence why this is so. The following sentence deals a bit with this, but the order should be reversed, and explained more explicitly for people who might not know the context.
"more than the benchmark rainfall during a normal monsoon" - this seems jargony, and could be made clearer
"This caused the melting of Chorabari Glacier at the height of 3800 metres, and eruption of the Mandakini River" - clarify. does it not usually melt? Why is the height important? is "eruption" the right word for what happened in the river?
"which led to heavy floods near Gobindghat, Kedar Dome, Rudraprayag district, Uttarakhand, Himachal Pradesh and Western Nepal, and acute rainfall in other nearby regions of Delhi, Haryana, Uttar Pradesh and some parts of Tibet" - this should be broken into at least two ideas. The floods did not lead to acute rainfall.
Paragraph starting "The upper Himalayan territories of Himachal Pradesh and Uttarakhand" should be split. It deals with several unrelated ideas. The sentences about "heavy rainfall" and the city of Dehra Dun should be dealt with in the previous paragraph, and should be put in context so that they aren't just random factoids.
" damaged several houses and structures" - surely more than "several" houses and structures were damaged? Possible to get a specific figure?
"heavy rains resulted in large flashfloods and massive landslides" - this doesnt' flow with previous sentence. they should be combined in a more logical sequence or restructred
Basically the "Death and damage" section should be made more structured and flowing. At the moment there are a lot of random bits of information thrown in without a lot of order or structure.
"When the flood receded, satellite images showed one new stream at Kedarnath town" Is this really that important?
"and death toll in the state " - missing article. (the) - quite common in this article, and should be copy edited.
"Nepal" section - this seems to be dealing with Nepalese visitors to India, not Nepal as such. IMO not an appropriate section here.
"Rescue operations" - the tense used is not consistent. Standardize, either on past tense.
"Rescue operations" - WP:Overlink IMO, and overly focused on logistical details. Should give more of an overview, and less focus on the types of helicopters used, and specific casualty details.
"Prime Minister of India undertook an aerial survey of the affected areas and announced 1,000 crore (US$170 million) aid package for disaster relief efforts in the state" - name the PM, and it should be "announced a 1,000 crore) aid package...
"The US Ambassador to India extended a financial help of USD $150,000 " - not "a financial help" rather "financial aid"
Is the US the only foreign government to offer aid?
"The Government of India also cancelled 9 batches, or half the annual batches of the Kailash-Mansarovar Yatra, a Hindu pilgrimage" - to me it isn't self explanatory what a "batch" is in this context...
"Government agencies and priests of Kedarnath temple were planning mass cremation of the hundreds of victims, after one week of tragedy" why is this not under the Kedarnath section?
"unscientific developmental activities " - can development activities really be "unscientific"? unsustainable perhaps?
"as termed by certain environmentalists" - perhaps argued by? Maybe name the environmentalists?