Talk:Cyclone Onil/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Hurricanehink (talk) 02:17, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Writing is overall decent, but could be better to put the article over the top. Examples for fixing include avoiding split infinitives, not too much passive voice,

"However, dry air quickly entered the system, causing it to rapidly weaken, degrading to a depression just off the coast of Gujarat, India." - you shouldn't have two participles in the same sentence, it looks bad.

Done Cyclonebiskit (talk) 16:45, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Over the following several days, the system took a slow, erratic track towards the south-southeast before turning northeastward and making landfall near Porbandar on October 10 and dissipating." - it's a bit long-winded, particular since there are three participles! Try and clear it up.

Done Cyclonebiskit (talk) 16:45, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Offshore, 300 fishermen are believed to have gone missing during the storm and no reports have stated their status since Onil's passage." - could use some more punctuation or tweaking.

Done Cyclonebiskit (talk) 16:45, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

More importantly, what's the status on the 300 missing fishermen? That's a pretty significant detail that's not resolved, whether they were killed or not.

I've searched all over for this, I have no idea where they went. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 16:45, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"situated roughly 463 km (288 mi)" - why the exact numbers? Normally such distances are rounded to the nearest 5.

Fixed Cyclonebiskit (talk) 16:45, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think the naming details should be in the MH... what do you think?

Better there than in the unwanted "naming" section which most of the project voted against. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 16:45, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is there any reason the "100 kilometres" in the last sentence of the second paragraph is not converted? And why is kilometres written out?

Probably wrote it on a different day, fixed it. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 16:45, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just curious, is there any meteorological reason that the system moved away from land after it nearly dissipated? Also, was it forecast to restrengthen when it redeveloped into a TD?

No info available on that. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 16:45, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Within hours of moving inland, Onil dissipated early on October 10" - that sentence doesn't sit well with me, since there are two different references to time. Could you fix that, if you understand what I'm talking about?

I'm not sure what you're talking about actually... Cyclonebiskit (talk) 16:45, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, "within" refers to a specific time, but then you have another reference to time which is much more important. Something like "Early on October 10, Onil dissipated over India, several hours after moving inland." --Hurricanehink (talk) 22:06, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"The remnants of the cyclone brought light to moderate rainfall in India" - does this refer to the system's trek the first or second time around?

Specified Cyclonebiskit (talk) 16:45, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"an estimated 150,000 acres of land" - could you convert?

Converted Cyclonebiskit (talk) 16:45, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Pakistan paragraph has really bad organization. There's one sentence on the deaths, then one on flooding and downed power lines, then one on other deaths, then another about power in the region. Could you reorganize the data for better flow?

Reorganized

"port officials stated that it was now safe for fishermen" - you should avoid "now", unless you use it as a quote, since "now" is six years after the storm :P

I guess :P

That's it for now. I'm putting the GA nomination on hold. --Hurricanehink (talk) 02:17, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review Hink, I found it very helpful :) Cyclonebiskit (talk) 16:45, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. I responded to the one comment (which I hope you understand now), but it's not significant enough. Therefore, I'll pass the GA nomination. --Hurricanehink (talk) 22:06, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]