Talk:Cyclone Forrest/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: 12george1 (talk · contribs) 22:47, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Hello User:Cyclonebiskit, I will also review this article. After a quick skim, I just say that you did a good job of this one. However, I still have some issues that need to be fixed/addressed, ok?--12george1 (talk) 22:47, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

• "Tracking generally west the system steadily organized into a tropical storm" - Not sure here, but it might be a good idea to put a comma between "west" and "the"
• "Category 4-equivalent cyclone on the Saffir–Simpson hurricane scale with winds" - It's called the "Saffir-Simpson hurricane wind scale" now
  • It was called that then, though Cyclonebiskit (talk) 22:57, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
    • Ok, but I changed it to "Saffir–Simpson hurricane wind scale" inside the bracket.--12george1 (talk) 16:36, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
• "soon affected the cyclone as it turned abruptly eastward. Forrest" - I looked at the track and that isn't quite eastward. Maybe east-northeast or slightly north of due east? Generally eastward?
• "In Thailand, the system produced a storm surge that damaged or destroyed 1,700 homes and killed two people. Significant agricultural damage also occurred" - You sure that was also storm surge impacts? Or could there have been flooding and strong winds too?
• "Only two deaths took place in the country and overall damage was light." - I know damage was "light", but maybe you should add some damage statistics. Like that half the homes of St. Martin's Island were damaged or 200 thatched roof homes on Shah Farid Island suffered impact.
• "Development into a tropical depression was not anticipated until the system cleared the Philippines; however, organization was slower than forecast and a second TCFA was issued late on November 11. " - I'm not sure about how organization was slower than forecast. The system organized after clearing the Philippines, did it not?
  • That's what was conveyed through the ATCR. I guess they expected it to develop before passing Palawan Island maybe? There's no way to be certain though since the advisories are probably only kept in some physical archive on Hawaii (At least I hope they are....). Cyclonebiskit (talk) 15:29, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
    • Alright, that sounds possible too.--12george1 (talk) 16:36, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
• "As it approached Vietnam, it turned southwest and moved parallel to the coast before resuming its westerly track" - Too many it/its in one sentence. Also, did the JTWC approach Vietnam? :P I would replace the first "it" with something like "the storm" or "the cyclone"
• "The storm's proximity to land inhibited intensification, and it attained winds of 100 km/h (65 mph) as it moved over the Gulf of Thailand." - What date was this?
• Now that I am reading Thailand's impact section, there is nothing about storm surge
• "On November 20, the entire coast of Bangladesh was placed on red alert, the highest level of cyclone warning," - Add the year after that date, because someone might think you are still talking about 1991
• ""[not get] caught with our [(Bangladeshi authorities)] pants down like last year."" - Funny quote :P Anyway, what's with "Bangladeshi authorities" in both brackets and parenthesis?
  • Brackets are to show that it's an insert to the quote for clarification, the parentheses are there to show it's an explanation of "our" since that's how it would be placed in a normal sentence. Or at least that's my understanding of how it's meant to work. I could be wrong though.Cyclonebiskit (talk) 15:29, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

• • • Interesting. Well, I don't think I have seen something like that, but I am going to accept your explanation and scratched out this issue.--12george1 (talk) 16:36, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
• That should be it for now. Anyway, I'm hoping again that you aren't too busy at the National Hurricane Center and are able to fix/address these issues within the next week.--12george1 (talk) 22:47, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Addressed just about everything here. Replied to a few specifically as well. Thanks for the review, George! Cyclonebiskit (talk) 15:29, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

• I will not make you fix the issues that you replied too. Your explanations were good enough to convince me of ignoring those "issues". Anyway, because of the great work you have done, I will now pass this article and list it as a Good Article. Congratulations, --12george1 (talk) 16:36, 30 May 2014 (UTC)