Wikipedia

Talk:Cyclone Narelle

Latest comment: 8 years ago by Cyberbot II in topic External links modified
Learn more about this page
Good articleCyclone Narelle has been listed as one of the Natural sciences good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
February 9, 2013Good article nomineeListed

GA Review

edit
Latest comment: 11 years ago13 comments2 people in discussion
GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Cyclone Narelle/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Dana boomer (talk · contribs) 23:36, 6 February 2013 (UTC)Reply

Hi! I'll be taking this article for review, and should have my full review up shortly. Dana boomer (talk) 23:36, 6 February 2013 (UTC)Reply

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose):   b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):  
    • Lead - What year did this cyclone occur in?
    • Lead - "A total of 14 people were killed by the storm, and 17 others were listed as missing." This was quite a recent cyclone, but have there been any updates on those originally listed as missing?
    • Meteorological history - What is the difference between the techniques that give four such different maximum intensities (last half of second paragraph)? What is the difference between "operationally" (last sentence) and the three preceding descriptions?
    • Post-analysis indicated that they overestimated the peak intensity so they reduced it to the intensity listed now. The third is supplied by another agency, JTWC, and the fourth was just a satellite estimate that was not considered the actual intensity. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 05:08, 7 February 2013 (UTC)Reply
    • Is there any way we can make the difference between the first, second and fourth estimates more clear? (The JTWC one is fairly obvious - different agency, different techniques/equipment/whatever.) To a layman, it's quite confusing to have one sentence say "Narelle is estimated to have attained its peak intensity with winds of 185 km/h", and then a few sentences later say "the storm was believed to have peaked...with wind gusts estimated at 285 km/h". Dana boomer (talk) 20:19, 8 February 2013 (UTC)Reply
    • Indonesia, "Of the 17 crewmen, 6 were rescued and 11 others remained missing as of 16 January.", "In all, 14 people were killed and 6 others were listed as missing." Can these be updated?
    • Western Australia, "potentially as much as 76 mm (3 in) of rain." Why potentially if the cyclone happened a month ago?
    • Western Australia, "A potential tornado" - Don't we know one way or the other yet?
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (reference section):   b (citations to reliable sources):   c (OR):  
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects):   b (focused):  
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:  
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:  
  6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales):   b (appropriate use with suitable captions):  
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:  
    Overall a very nice write-up, as usual. However, there are a few places that feel like it was written as the cyclone was happening, with no updates after the storm had passed and people figured out what had actually happened. Also a couple of minor prose niggles and technical details. Nothing major, though, so I'm placing the article on hold until the above issues can be addressed. Dana boomer (talk)
    Thanks for the review Dana! Sadly there is no information available for any of the missing people or the possible tornado so I can't update that and provide a more accurate total. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 05:08, 7 February 2013 (UTC)Reply
    Mostly looking good. Just one last niggle that I'm not being able to wrap my head around - I think it needs to have a bit more background explanation that would be obvious to a hurricane person (i.e. you!) but is just confusing to a layperson (i.e. me!). Dana boomer (talk) 20:19, 8 February 2013 (UTC)Reply
    I made some tweaks to try and clarify the difference between the peaks. I removed one of them since it's not necessary and seems to only add confusion. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 20:43, 9 February 2013 (UTC)Reply
    That is much more clear! Thanks for the rewrite, and the article looks good, so I'm now passing it to GA status. One last thing to consider: Is it maybe undue weight to repeat the information about the drought in Australia twice in the lead (the first and last sentences), when in actuality the storm had more affect (more damage) in Indonesia? A minor issue, though, and not one to hold up GA status over. Nice work, Dana boomer (talk) 21:41, 9 February 2013 (UTC)Reply
edit
Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 44 external links on Cyclone Narelle. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 10:56, 4 July 2016 (UTC)Reply

Add topic
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Cyclone_Narelle&oldid=1211216866"