Talk:Cyclone Rosita

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Cyclone Rosita article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Cyclone Rosita 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
July 31, 2006	Good article nominee	Listed
February 28, 2008	Good article reassessment	Kept

Current status: Good article

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).
	This article has been assessed by editors of the WikiProject.

Australia: Western Australia Low‑importance

	Australia portal Cyclone Rosita is within the scope of WikiProject Australia, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Australia and Australia-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.AustraliaWikipedia:WikiProject AustraliaTemplate:WikiProject AustraliaAustralia articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Western Australia (assessed as Low-importance).
	Need help improving this article? Ask a Librarian^{What's this?} at the National Library of Australia, or the State Library of Western Australia.
	The Wikimedia Australia chapter can be contacted via email to helpwikimedia.org.au for non-editorial assistance.

Todo

It's close to B class, but you should work on putting it more into your own words. A lot is very similar to the BoM summary. Also, other sources couldn't hurt. Good job though. --Hurricanehink (talk) 12:43, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have changed some words, but my English is not brilliant; putting in my own words is quite difficult. Very nice picture! RaNdOm26 07:25, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, I suppose it's B class. Don't worry, your English is fine. Just try a little more to summarize; one long, well-written sentence is better than two small, poorly-written sentences. Surprisingly, finding a good pic was pretty hard. Aside from the Australian images, most satellite pics were too blurry or zoomed out, until I found the one that's in there now. --Hurricanehink (talk) 12:39, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

One more thing, you should try and use 17th April as little as possible. First, it leads to a redirect. Next, for me at least, it doesn't make much sense. Linking 17 April or April 17 would be nice, in the future. --Hurricanehink (talk) 12:40, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I'll try to avoid that. Also, I've noticed the 'storm path needed' template in the storm history section. Hhhhhhhmmmmmmmmm..........how can I create one, and what specific info do I need to make one? RaNdOm26 13:29, 9 July 2006 (UTC) P.S. why do you always write "Todo" instead of "To do" all the time? Surely, it doesn't take much effort to press the spacebar once!!![reply]

You can ask around. Jdorje has a track map generator, but he's been absent for a few months. I write "todo" instead of "to do" because it is a shorter form of the generally accepted "Todo List". --Hurricanehink (talk) 18:21, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also, you should link as April 17. Linking 17th April leads to a redirect, which is a little annoying sometimes. --Hurricanehink (talk) 18:25, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

17 April is also acceptable, but the month date combo should be linked as such, read WP:MOSDATE for the rationale. I'm trying to get the track map problem sorted, with any luck I'll manage that this week (AND get the colors correct).--Nilfanion (talk) 20:53, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't matter linking it as April 17 or 17 April, as your settings will automatically change it. Good luck with the track maps. --Hurricanehink (talk) 23:45, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually it does make a slight difference as unregistered users don't have preferences. In my opinion, whichever one of April 17 and 17 April is the more correct form for Australian dates should be used in this article wikilinked to allow registered users to use their prefs. I can now make the track map for Rosita, however that would use JTWC data at this time, I'd rather wait until I figure out how to use the BoM's.--Nilfanion (talk) 14:00, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

True, ok. Good luck with the maps. --Hurricanehink (talk) 18:23, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The aftermath needs sources. If all of the aftermath comes from the same source (like the one at the end of the last paragraph), the other paragraphs need the same citation. --Hurricanehink (talk) 13:49, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The article looks good. You should put it up for GA. --Hurricanehink (talk) 12:44, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Did it. RaNdOm26 16:30, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good article!

Well referenced, good photos, thorough coverage of storm and aftermath, and relevant external links. If more pics could be found and distributed appropriately through the article, that would be nice. Otherwise, great job folks!--Esprit15d 19:56, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

UTC times

Just as a note, for the sake of standardisation within WPTC, I've removed the colons from UTC times. Our timelines don't use colons for UTC, and both with and without colons is accepted, so I've removed them. – Ch acor 11:09, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

UTC times are NOT compulsory, are they? I've removed them since the article becomes too technical. RaNdOm26 05:29, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

From WP:MOSDATE: "If you know it, include the UTC date and time of the event in the article, indicating that it's UTC." – Ch acor 05:51, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

But there's no word in it that says it's compulsory. RaNdOm26 05:54, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It says "if you know it", and in this case it is known. – Ch acor 06:01, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

GA Sweeps Review: Pass

As part of the WikiProject Good Articles, we're doing sweeps to go over all of the current GAs and see if they still meet the GA criteria. I'm specifically going over all of the "Meteorology and atmospheric sciences" articles. I believe the article currently meets the criteria and should remain listed as a Good article. I have made several minor corrections throughout the article. Altogether the article is well-written and is still in great shape after its passing in 2006. Continue to improve the article making sure all new information is properly sourced and neutral. If you have any questions, let me know on my talk page and I'll get back to you as soon as I can. I have updated the article history to reflect this review. Happy editing! --Nehrams2020 (talk) 00:36, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Cyclone Rosita/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

More pics please, and also be wary of footnotes and punctuation; the note goes after the period without any spaces in between. Tito xd^(?!?) 23:04, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Last edited at 02:52, 23 September 2006 (UTC). Substituted at 12:36, 29 April 2016 (UTC)