Talk:Cyclone Erica/GA2

GA Reassessment

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

Closed due to inactivity from Jasper despite numerous attempts to get him to continue the reassessment. As the review is incomplete, the article is kept as a GA until someone else comes forth with additional comments. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 02:33, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Re-reviewing after I found numerous problems: GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Is it well written?
A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
Numerous grammar and styling problems:
- The second half of the first paragraph in the lead has numerous issues, such as "Originally, the storm moved slowly towards the east and then north early in its existence" (redundancies), "However, increasing wind shear caused the storm to be degenerated into a tropical low." (unnecessary passive voice that is awkward to read), "a Category 5 equivalent" (should be "a Category 5-equivalent cyclone"; "Category 5 equivalent" is an adjective, not a noun)
- "It subsequently moved northwards towards Mount Isa in Queensland, before it started to move eastwards and entered the Coral Sea near the Whitsunday Islands during 3 March." "before" is not the best conjunction here.
- "becoming equivalent to a tropical storm according to the JTWC by 1500 UTC on 5 March" "tropical storm" meaning?
- "Erica later attained maximum sustained winds of 105 km/h (65 mph 1-minute sustained)" – Not rounded correctly: 55 knots rounds to 100 km/h.
- "However the system began to move against the direction of the wind shear environment, and it lost much of its organization." Missing comma after "However", and not clear in the first half (a more academic way is to say its movement became out-of-phase with the wind shear, causing it to be more strongly affected by the shear")
- "Erica gradually intensified, attaining the equivalent to a Category 1 hurricane on the Saffir–Simpson Hurricane Scale (SSHS)" Missing period at the end of this sentence.
- "and peak winds of 260 km/h (150 mph 1-minute sustained)" This conversion is just wrong.
- "Later on 13 March, Erica began to parallel the western coast of New Caledonia while maintaining a strong intensity, before crossing the extreme southern end of the island at the Caledonian island commune of L'Île-des-Pins." "strong intensity" meaning?
- "After passing the island, Erica accelerated and began to rapidly weaken in the presence of strong wind shear. As a result, the cyclone began a phase of extratropical transition as it quickly paced to the southeast. On 15 March, Erica completed this transition. The remnant low continued to the east-southeast, ..." Weakening due to shear does not on its own cause extratropical transition, as implied by "As a result". "Remnant low" is also not the correct term.
B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
"On 15 March, Erica completed its transition into an extratropical cyclone and later fully dissipated the next day. " MOS:LEDE wants the lead to only contain things mentioned further down, but this is not one of them.
Is it verifiable with no original research?
A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:

B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:

C. It contains no original research:
Category 5 SSHWS or Category 4? 116 knots is also not a multiple of 5. These winds should be sourced (Neumann database or JTWC?).

D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
Is it neutral?
It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
Is it stable?
It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:

B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
I'm fairly sure we could use some damage pictures as well. There are two storm pictures (besides the infobox), so this seems a little unbalanced.
Overall:
Pass or Fail:
Substantial work is needed to bring it back to GA. It should be delisted if these issues are not fixed quickly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jasper Deng (talk • contribs)

@Jasper Deng: I went ahead and rewrote the meteorological history section. --TheAustinMan^{(Talk ⬩ Edits)} 01:59, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Jasper Deng: Any updates? It's been more than two months already... Nova Crystallis (Talk) 08:17, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Jasper Deng: Another month. This needs to be closed. AIRcorn (talk) 21:42, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Hurricanehink: Since Jasper isn't going to give any updates for this review, can you consider giving an updates on this? SMB9 9thx my edits 22:46, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@HurricaneTracker495: What about you? SMB9 9thx my edits 03:46, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Closing

When this reassessment will end? SMB9 9thx my edits 10:37, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.