Talk:Tropical cyclone basins/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
The most glaring problem with this article is formatting. In order to improve it, some sections need to be expanded, which had been commented on previously in 2007, and there has been little expansion since that comment. See the clarify comment I inserted into the southwest Pacific ocean, as the previously defined reference did not cover that sentence, which did not appear correct anyhow. Thegreatdr (talk) 12:47, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Huh? Commented where? What is not in the article that prevents it from being a good article? Nergaal (talk) 03:31, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The comment is within the box on the top of the article's talk page. =) Thegreatdr (talk) 22:00, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Review

Hi! I will be reviewing this article for GA status, and should have the full review up soon. Dana boomer (talk) 14:13, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for criteria)

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose): b (MoS):
The very last sentence of the article, you say "with up to 80 deaths or so in every season". This should probably just be "up to 80 deaths".

Fixed. Dana boomer (talk) 13:45, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
Ref 19 (WMO) deadlinks

done Nergaal (talk) 17:23, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
I am going to drop a note on Juliancolton's page to see if there's anything that he feels is missing from this page. I'm not a TC expert, so I don't think I'd know if something vital was missing if it bit me on the nose. I'm doing a complete check of the references and prose, and hopefully he'll drop by with a few comments on the content!

The content looks good overall. Some more information would be nice, especially for the last three sections. Especially for the South Pacific, if you can't find any more general info, add some examples of severe storms. Cheers, –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 15:40, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have looked for quite a while and either these regions are under-covered by wikipedia, or I simply couldn't find a way to get a list of these severe storms. Do you have a good place to find these? Nergaal (talk) 18:09, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of tropical cyclones might be a good place to start, but I'm not sure if it has information for the basins in question. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 18:13, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That was one of the first places I checked but I cannot say I found even one. Nergaal (talk) 18:37, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
←how is it now? Nergaal (talk) 04:01, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
It is stable.
No edit wars etc.:
It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Overall:
Pass/Fail:

This looks like a very nice summary article. I have a couple of comments above, and as I said, I am going to drop a note on Julian's page to see if he has any comments. Drop me a note if you have any questions. Dana boomer (talk) 14:28, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A lack of information about the topic within wikipedia should not be an excuse for lack of expansion, since MoS states that wikipedia articles cannot be used as references. If the southwest Pacific section, for example, is extremely short/stubby and confounding the formatting of the page, then do some googling or visit the library and see if they have any info that could expand the related sections. Thegreatdr (talk) 22:05, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I said that article was one of the first I've checked, not the only one! I was probably confusing when I said on wikipedia, but I think the correct word is that those zones aren't very well covered in general. Nergaal (talk) 22:49, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd consult the Bureau of Meteorology website (Australia's national weather service). Last time I checked, they did have a bit of historic information online for Australia...though I'm not sure how much would be applicable to this article in particular. Thegreatdr (talk) 00:06, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If this is all of the information there is, then I would say the article is complete! Everything looks good to me...it seems to be comprehensive coverage of the topic. If you find more info in the future, please add it in, though. I am passing this article for GA - nice work! Dana boomer (talk) 13:45, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]