Talk:Cyclone Helen (2007)/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
The review has begun. I've started making some copy editing and wikilink additions where needed.

~~Issue 1 - What year dollars are being used in regards to its damage? 2007, 2008, 2010, or 2011? It needs to be clarified.~~
- Clarified. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 19:58, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Not resolved yet. I see a note in its first occurrence, but not in later occurrences in the impact section. The text box on the top right is clear though. =) Thegreatdr (talk) 20:07, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - The note says all monetary values. I just want to avoid having to put A$# (2008 AUD; US$# 2008 USD), it gets cumbersome after the first instance :P Cyclonebiskit (talk) 20:26, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      - There are only two more instances where that note needs to be placed (as far as I can see). Once this is done, I'll pass the article as a GA. Thegreatdr (talk) 20:40, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        Added the notes to other places. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 21:01, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

*Issue 2 - How are increased sea surface temperatures (SST) associated with La Niña leading to increased cyclogenesis in the region Helen formed within? Last time I checked, the SSTs in that area are normally above 26C, so increasing them wouldn't necessarily increase the chances of formation there because that criterion of tropical cyclogenesis has already been met without the cold ENSO state. If you can find another reference to support that line, do so and add it. Otherwise, the line needs to be removed or reworded to take that implication out of the article.

- There's nothing about the La Niña increasing the chances of cyclogenesis. The articles states, "In general, this event [La Niña] results in increased sea surface temperatures near Australia, one of the main factors in tropical cyclogenesis." Unless I'm reading it wrong, it doesn't state anything about increased TC formation, it just says that it increased SSTs. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 19:58, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Forgetting about cold ENSO for a moment, it reads like increased SSTs are one of the main factors in tropical cyclongenesis, which is not true (except maybe in areas that normally have sub 26C SSTs). I'd remove the section after the comma, then you'll be fine. Thegreatdr (talk) 20:07, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Ah, now I see what you're saying. Yea, makes sense to remove that bit (did so). Cyclonebiskit (talk) 20:26, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Referencing is good all around (no broken links), and the remaining content looks fine by me. I resolved issues with multiple wikilinks for singular topics. Remember that only one wikilink is useful, at the first occurrence of a term.

Reviewer: Thegreatdr (talk) 19:37, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am happy to pass this article as a GA. Congratulations! Thegreatdr (talk) 21:25, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]