Talk:Cyclone Clare/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Pyrotec (talk) 14:56, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Starting review. Pyrotec (talk) 14:56, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Initial comments

This looks to be quite a reasonable article. I've do a quick read through and I have a couple of minor questions, which will follow later (unless I answer them myself during the review). However, this article appears to be of the required standard and should make GA-status by the end of this review. I will now start the detailed review: I tend to leave the WP:Lead until last and come back to it last, but we will see. Pyrotec (talk) 19:05, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, this stage appears to be somewhat negative, as its mostly about "problems", not the good points.

Info box -

Considering that the cyclone hit Western Australia:

Y Pyrotec (talk) 13:51, 7 April 2010 (UTC) - I'm surprised that the damage is costed in US Dollars, does not Australia have currency of its own (it does)?[reply]

I'm not sure about this to be honest. All tropical cyclone articles use USD in the infobox, but maybe it would be worth discussing at WT:WPTC. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 13:27, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK, so your justification is Consistency. Pyrotec (talk) 13:51, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Those figures are not WP:verifiable and I would have expected a note on how current value was estimated.
They appear to be merely as "tease", as there is no mention (or expansion) of value in the body of the article.

In response to both of the above points, I just copied that figure from the season article and forgot to follow up with it. Looking more closely, the source used in the season article doesn't seem to be particularly reliable [1]. Any thoughts? –Juliancolton | ^Talk 13:27, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

He seems to be a Minister (Member of Parliament), so perhaps he knows what he is talking about. Pyrotec (talk) 13:51, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The figure seems to be more of a guess than anything, and doesn't necessarily account for all of the damage, nor does it specify whether it's in Australian currency or USD. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 14:03, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The figures are in the info box, so there should be a note itemising where they came from, it could also clarify the uncertainly over which currency was being quoted - the requirement is Verification not absolute truth so we must not imply a greater certainty than the sources to hand. Pyrotec (talk) 14:25, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that it isn't particularly verifiable either. The only damage figure is a quote saying it could be as high as 5 million dollars. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 14:44, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well if the sources states up to 5 million dollars (of some type) then the info box should reflect that. It current states "$3.2 million (2006 USD) $3.5 million (2010 USD)" and there is a requirement for WP:Verifiability. I see no reason why the box can't state "up to $5 million (2006 AUD) (beleived to be Australian dollars but could be USD - or what ever caveat is need). Values in USD appears to be a WT:WPTC convention, it is not a requirement for GA. Alternatively, if there is no reliable figure then the infobox should reflect that. Pyrotec (talk) 15:14, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Interestingly, I see from Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles/GAN backlog elimination drives/April 2010 that you have passed two - one has no value and the other has "unknown" value - I have no objections to this. Pyrotec (talk) 15:26, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Just as a side-note, the infobox is really finicky and only accepts standard numbers. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 13:12, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Meteorological history -

Y Pyrotec (talk) 14:15, 7 April 2010 (UTC) - The first paragraph is not too clear (the WP:lead is, possibly, more enlightening). I'm guessing that the BOM called it (or is it a she?) Clare, whilst the JTWC called it "05S". However, I should not need to make guesses as to meaning in a GA.[reply]

Good idea, fixed. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 13:27, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Y Pyrotec (talk) 14:15, 7 April 2010 (UTC) - (Comment) by using the wikilinks it apparent that BOM is an Australian organisation and JTWC is USA, but it might help to clarify this paragraph if it is explicity spelt out.[reply]

Clarified. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 13:27, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Y Pyrotec (talk) 14:25, 7 April 2010 (UTC) - Is there any systemic reason why JTWC estimates were lower than BOM, or is this a "point to note without further comment"?[reply]

The two agencies rarely agree, but it's worth noting that the BoM uses 10-minute standard winds, while the JTWC uses 1-minute. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 13:27, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If it was the 1 v 10 minute averages, then the 1 minute average wind speeds should be higher, which they aren't according to the article. They are likely using an estimation such as the Dvorak technique that is subjective and highly dependent upon the skill of the analyst. -Atmoz (talk) 22:44, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Preparations and impact -

Y Pyrotec (talk) 14:29, 7 April 2010 (UTC) - The statement "In advance of the storm's landfall, officials issued a "red alert" for several locations" is certainly verifiable (and apparently reliable), but the BBC is on the other side of the world.[reply]

Well, the BBC covers the entire world. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 13:27, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Y Pyrotec (talk) 14:17, 7 April 2010 (UTC) - There are two statements about damage - at one location "caused no known damage" and at the other "Property damage was generally minor, and no causalities or significant injuries from the storm were reported", where does $3.2 million (2006 USD) come from?[reply]

Again, I'm not sure how reliable the source for the $3.2 million is, but in any case, even if damage surpassed several million dollars, damage could still be generally minor. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 13:27, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:Lead -

Y Pyrotec (talk) 14:15, 7 April 2010 (UTC) - Comparing this against Preparations and impact, the summary only appears to cover the third paragraph of the latter, not the second.[reply]

I added a wind gust fact to the lead. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 13:27, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

At this point I'm put the review On Hold for points to be addressed. Pyrotec (talk) 10:29, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the detailed review! It's appreciated. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 13:27, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Overall summary

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Is it reasonably well written?
A. Prose quality:

B. MoS compliance:
Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
A. References to sources:

B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

C. No original research:
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. Major aspects:

B. Focused:
Is it neutral?
Fair representation without bias:
Is it stable?
No edit wars, etc:
Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
Overall:
Pass or Fail:

I'm awarding this article GA-status. Congratulations on acheiving the required standard. Pyrotec (talk) 20:06, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]