Jump to content

Talk:Cyclone Indlala

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Todo

[edit]

Perhaps it should be mid importance. The first thing to do would be fix the spelling errors. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 18:41, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Juliancolton (talk) 18:50, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No it's not. There are still several typos, and the overall writing could be better. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 20:21, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Pretty sure I got them all now. I also copyedited the article a little, which should improve the writing. Juliancolton (talk) 20:42, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Fix the Infobox, please. I still see a few typos, but it's a little better. More wikilinks would be nice. Did the cyclone affect any other areas? What about Seychelles, perhaps? How many people were killed, as the infobox and impact section don't match up. More units would be nice, such as where it formed, where it moved ashore, etc. I have a problem with citing Meteo France in the article when you say that Indlala was the equivalent of a Cat. 4 hurricane, as nowhere in the source says it was at that strength. --♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 20:51, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Done, except, I can't find anything in the sources I used, or anywhere for that matter, that says anywhere besides Madagascar was affected. I will continue looking, though. Aside from that,is the writing any good, now? Juliancolton (talk) 21:02, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I more meant it'd be nice if you said where the system formed, in km and miles. The writing is not particularly good, but it's better. It could use a copyedit from a fresh set of eyes. Overall, nice job with the article. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 22:50, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I will fix that, and should I reuqest a copyedit from the Leaque of Copyeditors, or should I just keep on stabbing at it myself? Juliancolton (talk) 22:52, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The LoC is pretty busy, but maybe it's worth a shot. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 22:57, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ok. Oh, and is there enough impact? I was concerned that there was not enough impact for 88 deaths, but that was all I could find. Juliancolton (talk) 22:58, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It'd be nice if there were more than 4 impact sources. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 23:07, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I will continue looking. Although, the only impact that I have found so far is from relief web. Juliancolton (talk) 23:08, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If you're still searching, perhaps you should withdraw your request. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 23:10, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I doubt I will find anything more, but, I think I will keep my request, even if I have to stop editing this article. Juliancolton (talk) 23:13, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Given how recent it is, and how deadly it was, I'm sure there's more info. --♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 23:14, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yea, I found some more, but I don't know if it will affect the LoCE request. Juliancolton (talk) 23:15, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, if you're going to add some more info, and the article wasn't too hot after you first published, perhaps you should withdraw it, as I don't think it's unreasonable that if you add more, there'll be more typos. --♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 23:17, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What if I use the spell checker on my computer? Than could I add more, and still keep the request? Juliancolton (talk) 23:18, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There are more problems than just the spelling. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 23:19, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, ok. I will withdraw my request later. I doubt you have the time, but would you mind just giving it a general copyedit? That would really help. Juliancolton (talk) 23:21, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, and is there anything in this article that could be used in the DYK? Juliancolton (talk) 01:16, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Cyclone Indlala. 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, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:18, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Cyclone Indlala/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: TheAustinMan (talk · contribs) 21:26, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Howdy, Hurricanehink! I'll be taking a look at this article shortly and evaluating it against the good article criteria. --TheAustinMan(Talk ⬩ Edits) 21:26, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Good Article review progress box
Criteria: 1a. prose () 1b. MoS () 2a. ref layout () 2b. cites WP:RS () 2c. no WP:OR () 2d. no WP:CV ()
3a. broadness () 3b. focus () 4. neutral () 5. stable () 6a. free or tagged images () 6b. pics relevant ()
Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked are unassessed
  • You describe Indlala as "The 12th tropical system...", but this might be a bit ambiguous. After all, monsoon troughs and unorganized clusters of tropical thunderstorms might also be considered "tropical systems". I'm not sure if there's a workaround, but you might want to check to see if there's a term that MFR uses to collectively describe organized tropical systems.
  • Be sure to hyphenate 10-minute and 1-minute.
  • For the statement "The cyclone struck Madagascar after the country already experienced deadly floods and other cyclones", how recent were these floods and cyclones? You indicate three months in the body of the article, so that'd be good to include in the lede, too.
  • The Meteorological history section is sharply written. Stellar work!
  • From the Mauritius report, I see a peak gust of 65 km/h on St. Brandon and a 48 km/h gust on Agaléga, which seems to be different than what the article says despite citing the same source.
  • The reference "Madagascar: Fifth Cyclone Hits Island Bulletin no. 1/2007" has a different date format than all the other references.
  • The Impact section and the associated source says damage was over US$240 million (emphasis mine) while the lede and infobox suggest the damage was either at or around US$240 million, so these should be made consistent.
  • For the claim that "Houses made of concrete fared better than traditional wooden huts", in the associated source the report does discuss "traditional houses", but I can't find any description of these traditional homes as being wooden or being huts, as the article claims.
  • I see both metric ton (tonne) and ton used in the Aftermath section. It may be useful to provide the relevant metric/customary conversions for these measures so that it is unambiguous what units are being used.
  • A "US" is missing from "the American embassy in Antananarivo released $100,000 for urgent relief operations".
  • The pictures are relevant and public domain, though I think the track map caption should be a bit more descriptive, in line with other cyclone articles, and the date of the infobox image noted in its caption. That caption might also be a good place to note that it depicts the JTWC track since the prose describes a few things that don't really line up with the image (i.e. the reemergence into the Indian Ocean). The selection of images is sufficient, but I would consider perhaps swapping out the satellite image in the Impact section for something that hints at the impact a bit more. Perhaps some of these public images from Earth Observatory may be of use.
  • I added the date caption and the track map, as well as the NASA pic, good call. I kept both satellite images, because the structure was different when it moved ashore, and because there's room for multiple images. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 23:26, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And that's all I have to say. I look forward to promoting this article once the above notes are addressed. It's a smooth article and reads like the breeze, sticking to the facts without bludgeoning the details. Certainly checks off the boxes for being readily understandable for the lay person, I think, and the sources are quality. The article appears to cover the necessary scope. The sources are authoritative and reliable on their own already, though I wonder if perhaps the addition of Malagasy sources (search for "Indlala site:.mg" on Google, for instance) may be able to add some local perspective. TheAustinMan(Talk ⬩ Edits) 22:29, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Cyclone_Indlala&oldid=1211215740"