Talk:Cyclone Ulli/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: InTheAM (talk · contribs) 13:54, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

The article is very good for such a recent subject. However, due to the limited time available to polish the article, there are several issues.

1. Well-written

a) Article has multiple prose issues.

• In lead, 'south-east' should not be hyphenated.

Done.

• In Meteorological history, 'Mid-west' should not be hyphenated and should probably be linked.

Done.

• In Meteorological history, 'north-west' should not be hyphenated.

Done.

• In Impact, this sentence: "In Edinburgh, winds were reported to be gusting to 102 mph (164 km/h), with winds also gusting to 105 mph (169 km/h) in Malin Head." might read better like this: "Wind gusts were reported at 102 mph (164 km/h) in Edinburgh and 105 mph (169 km/h) in Malin Head."

Altered it slightly.

• In Impact, the name of the victim is not needed.

Done.

• In Impact, write out numbers at beginning of sentences. 10'000 needs changed to 10,000.

Done.

• In Impact, this sentence needs re-worded: "Strathclyde Fire and Rescue attended 488 incidents, with Lothian and Borders Fire Service attending more than 170 incidents over a 12 hour period during the storm, most were the result of structural damage to buildings, fallen trees and traffic accidents."

Removed.

• In Impact, 'half-an-hour' should be 'a half hour' or 'thirty minutes'

Done.

• In Impact, "His mother jumped in to save him in which both survived." Sentence needs re-worded.

Done.

• In Impact, "strongest storm for seven years" - should 'for' be 'in'?

Yes, done.

• In Impact, "Aalborg was hard hit..." - This sentence has some parallel wording issues.

What?

The wording is off. I fixed it.

• Throughout, be consistent with use of 'mph' and 'km/h'. I saw both used as the primary unit.

Will fix later.

• The year of the storm is not mentioned anywhere in the article.

It is mentioned in the infobox. However, I have added it in the MH.

b) Manual of style

• The lead includes information that is not in the rest of the article and does not summarize the entire article.

Will fix later.

2. Factually accurate and verifiable

• The references seem good. The only issue I noticed was that reference 8 does not show that damage was caused by the storm in the Midwestern U.S.

Will remove.

• Not necessary, but encouraged: Refs 24, 25, and 26 are bare URLs. They should be formatted like the rest of the sources.

Will fix later.

Fixed.

3. Broad in its coverage

• In meteorological history section, there is no mention of the dissipation of the storm

Will add later.

Added.

• The Aftermath section is about a different storm, but should be probably about recovery efforts.

I haven't seen anything about the recovery efforts.

• I think that the storm is too recent to write a broad enough article on the subject. For example, there are no damage estimates or economic effects to include.

I'll probably GAN in a few months again?

Once more info is available, mainly about the aftermath, I think you'll have the information to add to the article that is needed. This effects the stability of the article also.

4. Neutral

• The article is written from a neutral point of view and includes no original research.

5. Stable

• The stability of this article is questionable. The storm just passed, thus, new information will continue to be made available in the near future.

6. Images

• Images are appropriate and captions are good.

Due mainly to the concerns for the stability of the article, I am going to fail this article for now. I think it has good potential to be a good article in the next few months. It is well-sourced, and with the quick fixes to the prose and lead, it should pass. Hopefully, someone sticks with it and sees it to GA status soon. InTheAM 17:42, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Thank you, will fix later. Bruvtakesover (T|C) 17:48, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

In Impact, this sentence needs re-worded: "Strathclyde Fire and Rescue attended 488 incidents, with Lothian and Borders Fire Service attending more than 170 incidents over a 12 hour period during the storm, most were the result of structural damage to buildings, fallen trees and traffic accidents." HOW DOES Removed = RE-WORDED? is it more like cant be bothered? I have re-worded with links, back in: If still not good enough will RE-WORD AGAIN,,,

I can remove what I like. Bruvtakesover (T|C) 16:40, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

There is no need for an edit war here. As long as the sentence is cited correctly and the sentence is grammatically correct, I do not see a problem with leaving it in the article. Also, this discussion needs to take place on the article's talk page. I will move any other comments made here. InTheAM 17:27, 11 January 2012 (UTC)