Talk:Cyclone Ulli/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: InTheAM (talk · contribs) 13:54, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The article is very good for such a recent subject. However, due to the limited time available to polish the article, there are several issues.

1. Well-written

a) Article has multiple prose issues.

In lead, 'south-east' should not be hyphenated.

Done.

In Meteorological history, 'Mid-west' should not be hyphenated and should probably be linked.

Done.

In Meteorological history, 'north-west' should not be hyphenated.

Done.

In Impact, this sentence: "In Edinburgh, winds were reported to be gusting to 102 mph (164 km/h), with winds also gusting to 105 mph (169 km/h) in Malin Head." might read better like this: "Wind gusts were reported at 102 mph (164 km/h) in Edinburgh and 105 mph (169 km/h) in Malin Head."

Altered it slightly.

In Impact, the name of the victim is not needed.

Done.

In Impact, write out numbers at beginning of sentences. 10'000 needs changed to 10,000.

Done.

In Impact, this sentence needs re-worded: "Strathclyde Fire and Rescue attended 488 incidents, with Lothian and Borders Fire Service attending more than 170 incidents over a 12 hour period during the storm, most were the result of structural damage to buildings, fallen trees and traffic accidents."

Removed.

In Impact, 'half-an-hour' should be 'a half hour' or 'thirty minutes'

Done.

In Impact, "His mother jumped in to save him in which both survived." Sentence needs re-worded.

Done.

In Impact, "strongest storm for seven years" - should 'for' be 'in'?

Yes, done.

In Impact, "Aalborg was hard hit..." - This sentence has some parallel wording issues.

What?

The wording is off. I fixed it.

Throughout, be consistent with use of 'mph' and 'km/h'. I saw both used as the primary unit.

Will fix later.

The year of the storm is not mentioned anywhere in the article.

It is mentioned in the infobox. However, I have added it in the MH.

b) Manual of style

The lead includes information that is not in the rest of the article and does not summarize the entire article.

Will fix later.

2. Factually accurate and verifiable

The references seem good. The only issue I noticed was that reference 8 does not show that damage was caused by the storm in the Midwestern U.S.

Will remove.

Not necessary, but encouraged: Refs 24, 25, and 26 are bare URLs. They should be formatted like the rest of the sources.

Will fix later.

Fixed.

3. Broad in its coverage

In meteorological history section, there is no mention of the dissipation of the storm

Will add later.

Added.

The Aftermath section is about a different storm, but should be probably about recovery efforts.

I haven't seen anything about the recovery efforts.

I think that the storm is too recent to write a broad enough article on the subject. For example, there are no damage estimates or economic effects to include.

I'll probably GAN in a few months again?

Once more info is available, mainly about the aftermath, I think you'll have the information to add to the article that is needed. This effects the stability of the article also.

4. Neutral

The article is written from a neutral point of view and includes no original research.

5. Stable

The stability of this article is questionable. The storm just passed, thus, new information will continue to be made available in the near future.

6. Images

Images are appropriate and captions are good.

Due mainly to the concerns for the stability of the article, I am going to fail this article for now. I think it has good potential to be a good article in the next few months. It is well-sourced, and with the quick fixes to the prose and lead, it should pass. Hopefully, someone sticks with it and sees it to GA status soon. InTheAM 17:42, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, will fix later. Bruvtakesover (T|C) 17:48, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In Impact, this sentence needs re-worded: "Strathclyde Fire and Rescue attended 488 incidents, with Lothian and Borders Fire Service attending more than 170 incidents over a 12 hour period during the storm, most were the result of structural damage to buildings, fallen trees and traffic accidents." HOW DOES Removed = RE-WORDED? is it more like cant be bothered? I have re-worded with links, back in: If still not good enough will RE-WORD AGAIN,,,

I can remove what I like. Bruvtakesover (T|C) 16:40, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There is no need for an edit war here. As long as the sentence is cited correctly and the sentence is grammatically correct, I do not see a problem with leaving it in the article. Also, this discussion needs to take place on the article's talk page. I will move any other comments made here. InTheAM 17:27, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]