This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Aircorn(talk | contribs) at 01:06, 22 April 2012(clean up, replaced: arts → film using AWB). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 01:06, 22 April 2012 by Aircorn(talk | contribs)(clean up, replaced: arts → film using AWB)
From the "Plot" section, is it Lexer, Lexar, or Lexas. All three are used in this section, so consistency is needed.
This sentence is confusing: "During shooting, special effect supervisor Craig Weiss noted that the films with Dennis Quaid were particularly difficult to capture on film due to Quaid's multiple scenes being chased by twisters and surrounded their destructive aftermaths." Should that be "scenes with Dennis Quaid? "Twisters" is too colloquial, so "tornadoes" would be preferable. "surrounded their..." doesn't flow properly. Do you mean "surrounded by"?
"Daily Variety found the film to be full of cliches and side give the appearance" is confusing. What does "side give" mean?
The article mentions that three storms are approaching from the north and south. If one of the three is coming from Las Vegas to Chicago, wouldn't that be from the north, south, and west?
I will place the review on hold to allow for these concerns to be addressed and/or discussed. Any comments or questions can be placed on this page, as I have added it to my watchlist. Best wishes, GaryColemanFan (talk) 17:49, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Everything looks good to me. And when you work on an article for that long, it's only natural to let a few typos slip by. It happens to me on almost every article I write, no matter how much proofreading I do. I will promote the article to GA. Great work! If you have a chance, it would be great if you could review an article as well to help reduce the backlog. GaryColemanFan (talk) 23:01, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Awesomeness thanks! And thanks for reviewing so quickly! I was expecting to have to wait weeks. I'll try to get in to do some reviews...I used to do them quite often, but the backlash when I couldn't pass an unqualified got to be too stressful and I stopped for a long while. Came back doing the occasional GAR, but haven't done any GANs in awhile. -- AnmaFinotera (talk·contribs) 23:37, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Some areas in need of improvement
I read the article and was disappointed that there was minimal discussion about the scientific issues with the miniseries. The lead mentions some controversy over it, but there is very little detail about the flaws in the rest of the article. Do category 6 hurricanes exist? I have only heard of a category 5 hurricane in real life. Has Chicago every been hit by a hurricane? Also, I wanted to read more about hurricanes after looking at this article but I had a hard time finding a link to hurricane. Wronkiew (talk) 00:54, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There is minimal discussion because I haven't found any reliable sources discussing the film verses reality. If some can be found, it will be expanded to include that. Category 6 hurricanes are, as far as I know, purely theoretical. I do not think there is any recorded incidence of one. For your second question, Chicago has been hit by the remnants of hurricanes. For a hurricane scenarios as seen in the film (where in the hurricane forms over the great lakes), technically that isn't possible as part of the definition of a hurricane is that its tropical. You might find this article from the NSW interesting as it talks about hurricanes in Michigan and would also relate to chicago[1] and discusses some hurricane like storms that have formed over the great lakes, including "Hurricane Huron". I've added a wikilink to hurricane in the lead to help there. -- AnmaFinotera (talk·contribs) 01:05, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
