Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Cyclone Ada/archive1

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Sarastro1 via FACBot (talk) 20:08, 24 June 2017 [1].

Cyclone Ada

Nominator(s): – Juliancolton | ^Talk 01:28, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a natural disaster that can be considered a precursor to the subject of my most recent FAC, Cyclone Althea. Taking place one year earlier and a little to the south, Ada destroyed just about every resort in the booming Whitsunday Islands, ruining lots of holidays/vacations. Though all traces of the cyclone are long gone, it still periodically breaches the surface of the public consciousness when politicians talk about how nice it would be to erect a memorial somewhere, or belatedly honor particularly brave helpers in the storm's aftermath. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 01:28, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. - Dank (push to talk)

"A$12 million": I wrote that, changed from ... (1970 AUD), per MOSNUM. I think that's been in MOSNUM a while, but I respect that people don't want to flip back and forth. It would also be fine to drop the "A", since many readers (but not all) will assume Australian dollars from the start. I'm not sure if the meaning of "normalised" is clear, but I generally avoid the tougher usage questions in FAC reviews.
Support on prose per my standard disclaimer. These are my edits. A really good tropical cyclone article, about an important Australian storm. - Dank (push to talk) 16:33, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the normalized figure from the intro, since it's non-essential and a bit technical, like you say. As for MOSNUM, yeah, it's been a while since I've brushed up... I'll try to ensure better MoS compliance before my next nom. Thanks for the edits and prose review. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 01:57, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- MOS compliance is generally fine, not a problem. - Dank (push to talk) 04:41, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support ~~Comments~~ from Moisejp:
First read-through:
Aftermath: "The destruction of resorts in the Whitsundays triggered a sharp decline in Australian tourism revenue, described as one of the worst in the industry's history at the time." Does this mean the year 1970 had one of the worst yearly revenues so far? Moisejp (talk) 23:58, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I was unable to find any statistics to quantify the economic impact, so I just removed the second part of that sentence, which I agree is too vague to be of much use. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 01:57, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Very well written and comprehensive; I'm happy to give my support. In my second read-through my only other mini-suggestion is in the lead, "guest accommodation cabins" could be shortened to just "guest cabins"; but feel free to use or reject this idea as you wish. I also made a few small edits myself to the text. Cheers, Moisejp (talk) 05:39, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for the review and support. Agree about the redundancy there – edited as suggested. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 14:03, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Source review from Ealdgyth (talk · contribs)

I randomly googled three sentences and nothing showed up except mirrors. Earwig's tool shows no copyright violations.

Otherwise everything looks good. Ealdgyth - Talk 11:14, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Edwininlondon

A fine article. To the point. Just a few comments:

Lead opening: Severe Tropical Cyclone Ada -> I don’t want to be too fussy, but should all of this be bold?

That's the storm's official name, so per WP:LEADSENTENCE I believe it's correct for the full title to be in bold. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 22:30, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ada devastated multiple resort islands -> Surely loss of life comes first

Well, conventionally with natural disaster articles, we place the most important figures (ie. loss of life and monetary damage) at or close to the end of the paragraph/passage/blurb as a logical place to round out the storm's effects. I'm willing to make the suggested change if you consider it crucial, but I do think it would be a bit strange to mention the number of deaths before placing the disaster in proper context. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 22:30, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

OK, it's fine. I don't think we should break with convention.Edwininlondon (talk) 09:45, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As Ada reached North Queensland -> was there no prep at all for the islands?

There were generally no preparations anywhere except by the BoM. I was grouping together the islands as part of North Queensland, but since that wasn't clear, I linked the North Queensland article which does discuss the Whitsundays as part of the region. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 22:30, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Findings from studies of -> Would this not be better in the aftermath section?

Perhaps from a purely chronological standpoint, but the placement of that line was deliberate as it's closely related to the rest of the preps info. I wouldn't even know how to incorporate it into "Aftermath" without compromising the flow of the text. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 22:30, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

was identified near Long Island. -> definitely a link, but maybe even a modifier such as “one of the Whitsunday Islands”

Good catch, link added. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 22:30, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

may have exceeded 220 km/h -> should this not be in the Met section?

I feel that it's more natural where it is now, since it's an impact-dependent figure. Typically winds actually observed on land are mentioned in the "Impact" section. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 22:30, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

a woman in one of the structures was killed -> again I would describe loss of life first, definitely before trees

Well, the first few sentences of that section describe the overall impact before transitioning to a by-island breakdown, including individual fatalities. I've added a line break to hopefully make that transition more apparent. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 22:30, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Edwininlondon (talk) 16:23, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the review and suggestions! – Juliancolton | ^Talk 22:30, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

All fine. I support.Edwininlondon (talk) 09:45, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments by Finetooth

Looks good. I especially like the tracking image for this one: a mind-changing storm? Reads well. I have but three minor suggestions.

General

Images need alt text.

Meteorological history

"Beginning around 14:00 UTC, the core of Ada crossed the Whitsunday Islands." – As I read the lede and this section, I found myself wondering just how far off the coast the islands are. Since Hayman Island is the first individual island mentioned, perhaps adding the approximate distance to the coast from there would be helpful.

Preparations

"and public awareness was overall inadequate" – Slightly smoother as "and public awareness was generally inadequate"?

That's all. Finetooth (talk) 19:21, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the delay in addressing these comments, Finetooth. I've added alt text and made the other suggested changes. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 15:52, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

All good. Happy to support, as noted above. I made one change to the infobox. The "Alt=" in the infobox was not working as expected, but "alt" does. A bug? Finetooth (talk) 17:37, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I checked Cyclone Althea just now, and found and fixed the same problem. There might be other hurricane FAs with the same glitch. Finetooth (talk) 17:42, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator comment: Have I missed an image review anywhere? And just to note that there are still some unaddressed comments by Finetooth; the alt text is one that I'd also be raising. Sarastro1 (talk) 20:58, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Images are appropriately licenced. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:24, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the check! – Juliancolton | ^Talk 15:52, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Sarastro1 (talk) 20:08, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.