Jump to content

Talk:Cyclone Joy/GA1

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

GA Review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing

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

Reviewer: Ugog Nizdast (talk · contribs) 11:11, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator: Hurricanehink at 04:41, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I will be reviewing this and will be ready within a day (will let you know, if for some reason I take longer). Sincerely, Ugog Nizdast (talk) 11:11, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like I'll be delayed, expect it within a few days. -Ugog Nizdast (talk) 09:58, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No problem :) --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 17:37, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Well sourced and prose seems fine, does have issues with the lead. Also needs some content trimming, merging and rearrangement, please see my comments below. Once these have been addressed then I'll be happy to promote it.

  1. Is it reasonably well written?
    A. Prose is "clear and concise", without copyvios, or spelling and grammar errors:
    Mainly the lead and last section "Impact and aftermath".
    B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
  2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
    A. Has an appropriate reference section:
    B. Citation to reliable sources where necessary:
    C. No original research:
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. Major aspects:
    B. Focused:
    There might be areas which could do with a trimming in the last section.
  4. Is it neutral?
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. Is it stable?
    No edit wars, etc:
  6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
    A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
    B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:
    On hold: For seven days till these issues have been addressed. -Ugog Nizdast (talk) 15:24, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Article passes, all issues have been addressed. -Ugog Nizdast (talk) 20:48, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • 1A: The first sentence of the lead needs to be expanded. It could go like "happened in x date...affected northeast Australia etc...and the most significant reason for its infamy" (like the most _ disaster or the worst _ if any); this would establish context better. In the rest of the para, a single statement which mentions all the towns/cities of Queensland it affected (and other areas outside) would be good since not everyone is familiar with these locations. Also one for showing its exact duration and another summarising all its damage (if possible). For the rest of the lead, could you consider adding about the wildfires being reduced (seems interesting but you will know about its importance)?
This would be nice, "Cyclone Joy was a significant tropical cyclone which formed during the 1990–91 Australian region cyclone season in December and mainly affected the Queensland state, northeast Australia; it produced the third highest floods on record in the Rockhampton town." (notice the contextual links..this is just a rough draft)
Also these two mentions, "In Mackay, a tornado damaged an RV park and 40 homes." and "Cyclone Joy dropped torrential rainfall south of its track, accumulating over 2 m (6.6 ft) south of Mackay." can be joined and shortened...no need for these as they are mentioned below. -Ugog Nizdast (talk) 15:30, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Is there a reason you want to cram the season into the opening sentence? I don't want the first sentence to say too much, and right now, I think it's detailed enough to explain why it has an article. I'm sorry, but I disagree with your opening sentence suggestion due to it being too long. For what it's worth, I added the link to tropical cyclone, but I don't see the need to say "Severe Tropical Cyclone Joy was a significant tropical cyclone". Ehh, that's fairly redundant. I'm explaining why it was significant, as opposed to saying it was (which I think isn't needed). I tweaked to merge those two Mackay sentences.♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 17:20, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It's fine then...it does sound too redundant because the links were forced into it. I mainly wanted the season link because of WP:CONTEXTLINK and most of the FAs manage to link that, cyclone and the place it affected. Since it causing the Rockampton floods is covered in the first sentence, it's good to go. Do consider still adding a link to the season, it shouldn't make the current statement too lengthy. -Ugog Nizdast (talk) 20:48, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • 3B: In "Impact and aftermath", for it to be clearer and have better flow...these long paras need to be chopped, the similar content need to be arranged together and I think some statements (extra figures and a bit minor details) can be done away with or made into just passing mentions. Consider this rearrangement:
    • The following can be split into just an "Impact" section:
      • First para will detail only the increased rainfall and major effects in various places, the rest can be moved.
      • Second will be how it affected the rivers and the flooding (currently, the content from the 3rd and part of the 4th para).
      • Third: The para about how it affected people and industries. The deaths (surfer and the rest in the flooding), property damage and the rest.
      • Fourth: On the corals etc. (you don't need to go strictly by this order)
    • A second section for "Aftermath":
      • Two paras can be made from the current last para and also from the present 4th para—later response in Northampton, the last half of it.
    • Do consider trimming down (or consider making it a passing mention) the content about: a bit too local regions, extra statistics which make it more complicated to read through and other such similar details. I leave it to you to decide what should go and if you want, I could make some specific suggestions.
    • Alright, I split off the aftermath, and split the first impact paragraph. Right now, the order is damage to offshore islands (it was the first area affected, so went with that), then the rainfall, then overall and non-flooding effects, then river flooding, then Rockhampton River flooding, then the reefs. Better? --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 22:50, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
All good. -Ugog Nizdast (talk) 15:30, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Minor: why is it "an RV" and it needs linking or explanation, so does "gale force wind". Please re-word/clarify this, "There were reports of looting at the height of the floods", sounds a bit odd.
    • When you pronounce it, it's "ar-vee". It's linked already though. I think "gale" is fairly common, so I'll just link it. Regarding looting, I thought it was something interesting to include, but since it's fairly trivial, I cut it. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 22:50, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • 2B: Despite it been almost excessively having inlines, you missed a spot on this one, "Rainfall continued through the region through March 1991, resulting in the third largest flood in the region in over 100 years.". Ugog Nizdast (talk) 15:24, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I must have overlooked something, sorry. Ugog Nizdast (talk) 15:30, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No prob :) ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 17:20, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Some more...

  • 3B: These areas can be trimmed in sections 'Impact' and 'Aftermath'.
    • " Between Bowen and St. Lawrence, rainfall totaled over 1 m (3.3 ft)." can be appended to the previous statement by just adding "and 1m (3.3 ft) between Bowen and St. Lawrence."
    • "The winds were strong enough to knock over trees, causing power and phone outages. The city of Cairns was briefly isolated after debris blocked roads, and the town's water supply was cut due to storm damage." can be easily shortened into a single statement since Cairns is already introduced in the previously.
    • Alright, combined them. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 17:20, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • " An outer rainband struck Mackay "...maybe simpler wording?
    • "Port Douglas to Innisfail, Queensland, Joy left heavy damage" and " In Innisfail, strong winds damaged over ..." can again be shortened and merged.
    • "several banana farmers lost half of their crop in the Cairns region," seems unnecessary because of this main statement, "Crop damage totaled over $70 million (1991 AUD), mostly to sugar cane and banana, the latter of which incurred the loss of 1.2 million bunches". Then "collectively about 30,000 heads of livestock were killed in the region." can be shifted and joined above, where Cairns was being mentioned.
    • "In Port Douglas, Joy produced a storm surge of 0.5 m (1.6 ft), which failed to cause significant coastal flooding"...can be done away with? does not seem that relevant.
    • "The Pioneer River at Mackay peaked at 7.6 m (25 ft) in late December, low enough not to cause river flooding due to a levee in place;[1] however, flooding from rainfall affected about 90% of the city, which restricted train travel"...again does not seem relevant...Also you can move the second statement (if it's that important) to the previous section where Mackay was mentioned.
      • I moved the rainfall bit (I was trying to keep all flooding impacts together, but I'll move it). And the Pioneer River was the primary cause of the storm's destruction. I found it interesting it was minimal in Mackay yet catastrophic in Rockingham. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 17:20, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • There are two statements about Giru which can be joined together for shortening.
    • "While Rockhampton was still isolated by flooding, a helicopter airdropped food to hundreds of stranded families.[36] The town experienced food and water shortages, necessitating airdrops by the military.", redundant extra wording, can be shortened into one statement. -Ugog Nizdast (talk) 15:30, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I may make minor edits myself and tick off the remaining criteria later. I probably have not covered everything with my examples and you make additional changes like these, wherever I've overlooked. If you have any problems with any of them, please tell. Also let me know if you want more than a week to address these. Apologies for delaying and Merry Christmas! Ugog Nizdast (talk) 15:24, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, think I got everything, thanks! --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 22:50, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Okay almost done...just address my latest comments and also my new suggestion for the lead starting sentence right above. -Ugog Nizdast (talk) 15:30, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Replied again, and I explained why I'm not the biggest fan of your lede suggestion. I do really appreciate the review, and I hope you don't think myself as arrogant for not changing the first sentence. On the contrary, I welcome other suggestions, but I just feel strongly about how it is right now, that it's the most concise without being overly verbose. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 17:20, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No problem. Everything seems to be in order, I'm happy to pass this article. Nice work, Ugog Nizdast (talk) 20:48, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Cyclone_Joy/GA1&oldid=588571880"