Talk:Cyclone Jasmine

Cyclone Jasmine has been listed as one of the Natural sciences good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
January 16, 2013	Good article nominee	Listed

Weather: Tropical / Southern Hemisphere Low‑importance

	Weather portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Weather, which collaborates on weather and related subjects on Wikipedia. To participate, help improve this article or visit the project page for details. Articles Requested Project Resources Become a Member Project Talk Assessment A-Class Alerts WeatherWikipedia:WikiProject WeatherTemplate:WikiProject WeatherWeather articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	Tropical cyclones portal This article is supported by WikiProject Tropical cyclones (assessed as Low-importance).
	This article is supported by the Southern Hemisphere work group (assessed as Low-importance).

Merge?

The article is very MH heavy, but it doesn't establish any sort of importance or notability. It just says the storm caused some winds on Vanuatu that caused "some damage". No mentions of deaths, quantifiable damage, whatnot. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 19:47, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why was this merged without consensus? I reverted the merge per WP:BRD. After a huge fight on IRC, that including argument on both sides that were IMO invalid. In all, it appears that the storm was notable, and can be expanded, but now that it is merged, I don't see any point in it coming back. I have three main concerns.

1) WPTC needs to work around these issues, during the glory days on the project that is what we did and it worked. We need to continue about it, and when such a debate must occur, we need to be rational and stay on topic (which I thought we went a little off topic today about other bad WP articles).

2) I don't want merging to be the lazy way out of expanding an article, which leads to basis and freaky discussions on both sides. For one, we should focus on what the storm did, not whether or not an article sucks. We've been doing a good job the past year or so on this until like a few weeks ago, maybe because even most bad articles do list the death/damage total and not much else (i.e. actual damage).

3) IMO don't merge any article without on-wiki discussion. Merging is a controversial process at WPTC, so the odds of one being without objection are somewhat slim.

Back to Jasmine, I belive the storm is notable to get an article, so this storm should never drum up any other major issues. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 21:39, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please to explain to me how a storm that killed one person and caused flooding and downed some power lines is notable. Even if we tried our best to keep this article, it would be extremely MH-weighted. TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk) 21:53, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That is more than enough. Most TC's, in particular in the EPAC and SPAC, do not do that and would satisfy WP:N. And what's wrong with an MH wieghted article, thousands of articles on WP are like that, most of their info is in one section. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 22:06, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

First of all YE, there was no consensus to keep the article. There were no objections, so it was merged. It wasn't controversial, and no content was lost. It doesn't matter if the article can be expanded (and it's more likely an article will be expanded if it is merged, see Hurricane Charley (1986), Hurricane Barbara (1953), and Cyclone Alby). An article is judged how it currently is before it is merged. It's not being lazy, it's simply moving the content from one poorly-done article to another area. We should certainly be focusing on the article. If someone feels like making it a good article, they can, but no one had done so. It wasn't controversial, it was simply procedural. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 01:28, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If three people objected on IRC and one person reverted the first merge, then yes it was controversial. I don't think if an article was merged, people would be more likely to expand it, there are many instances where a proposed merger was saved (i.e. Hurricane Katia (2011), Hurricane Danielle (2010), Hurricane Hernan (1996). My point was that merging should be done if there are no ways to improve the article. Hink, are there any other articles that you feel are in the same boat as this? Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 14:11, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We don't operate based on IRC, and yes, per the examples I gave, if a storm is truly notable enough, it would get an article regardless and it'd end up being better. It's well known in the project that articles that are newly-made get a lot of work on them, and are typically of better quality than an existing start-class article. Merging this article improves Wikipedia - it adds some more content to the main article, and it eliminates a stub-class article. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 14:27, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As long as bad articles on fairly notable storms (like Hurricane Tina (1992) or Hurricane Adrian (1999)) do not get merged, I am happy. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 14:48, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I wouldn't compare Adrian to Jasmine. Adrian is well-sourced and has a lot of info, both in the MH and in the Impact section. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 14:56, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hurricane Debby (1988) may be a better compariosn, then. Anyway, I think it is sate to call this issue

Resolved

. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 22:07, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Cyclone Jasmine/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: 12george1 (talk · contribs) 21:31, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Cyclone Jasmine inundated areas of Tonga that had already been affected by Cyclone Cyril just a week prior." - Just say "Jasmine" rather than "Cyclone Jasmine", so you can avoid using the word "Cyclone" twice in one sentence. Although you did that earlier in the lead, you could not avoid using "cyclone" twice then, but here you can.
"By the end of 11 February, Cyclone Jasmine had already weakened to a cyclone" - Ditto
"Cyclone Jasmine was able to attain a secondary peak intensity of 85 km/h (50 mph), sustained for one minute, as the cyclone's banding features became better defined." - Ditto
"Due to Cyclone Jasmine's position between two anticyclones, the cyclone erratically moved in a loop in the vicinity of Tonga from 14 to 15 February," - Ditto
"Damage associated with Jasmine was mostly of agricultural nature, primarily to crops and fruit trees.[15] Casava and banana crops were damaged by the storm, but did not pose any threat to food security.[18] Damage to infrastructure was reported in Tanna. Tanna suffered from primarily damage to food crops. Areas that had traditions of not consuming damaged crops were especially impacted by the damage to food crops." - In these five sentences, you use the words "damage" or "damaged" six times, including twice in the same sentence. Is there anyway you can cut that down, like alternative it with the word "loses"?"
"was reported in Tanna. Tanna suffered from primarily" - This is a redundancy. You cannot start a sentence with the word used to end the previous sentence. Perhaps you may even be able to merge those two sentences.
"Cyclone Jasmine brought heavy rains and flooding to Tonga, which had already been impacted by heavy rains from Cyclone Cyril just a week prior." - You should probably only refer to it as "Jasmine" here, too.
In the references, #2 and #16 do not follow the apparently date standard for this article, which is month, day, then year.
I am not sure if this is required, but it might be a good idea to keep the accessdates consistent to their standard, which is day, month, and then year.
"Krisman, ALex (February 5, 2012). "Tropical Cyclone Jasmine forms of QLD coast". - What's with the capitalized "L" in Alex?

Done - Fixed all the aforementioned comments. As for the dates and access dates, since all the dates in the article are day month year anyway, I corrected all access dates and regular standard dates to that standard. TheAustinMan^{(Talk·Works)} 23:03, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the quick response. I am now gonna pass this article.--12george1 (talk) 23:06, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Todo?

I thought the article was close to A-class, but Jason Rees said it was nowhere close. What does it need then? ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 15:28, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It needs to flow better and have the numerous mistakes corrected, it also needs to note when it became a cat 3 STC since thats more important than a 2. It also needs to note when it moved in and out of te tropics (TCWC Wellingtons AOR).Jason Rees (talk) 15:34, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Cyclone Jasmine. 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:

Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/6CRsx0SCs?url=http://www.bom.gov.au/announcements/sevwx/qld/qldtc20120201a.shtml to http://www.bom.gov.au/announcements/sevwx/qld/qldtc20120201a.shtml

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) 20:00, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]