Talk:Cyclone Joy/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Ugog Nizdast (talk · contribs) 11:11, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Nominator: Hurricanehink at 04:41, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

I will be reviewing this and will be ready within a day (will let you know, if for some reason I take longer). Sincerely, Ugog Nizdast (talk) 11:11, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Looks like I'll be delayed, expect it within a few days. -Ugog Nizdast (talk) 09:58, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

No problem :) --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 17:37, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

---

Well sourced and prose seems fine, does have issues with the lead. Also needs some content trimming, merging and rearrangement, please see my comments below. Once these have been addressed then I'll be happy to promote it.

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose is "clear and concise", without copyvios, or spelling and grammar errors:

   Mainly the lead and last section "Impact and aftermath".

   B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. Has an appropriate reference section:

   B. Citation to reliable sources where necessary:

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   B. Focused:

   There might be areas which could do with a trimming in the last section.

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   On hold: For seven days till these issues have been addressed. -Ugog Nizdast (talk) 15:24, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Comments

• 1A: The first sentence of the lead needs to be expanded. It could go like "happened in x date...affected northeast Australia etc...and the most significant reason for its infamy" (like the most _ disaster or the worst _ if any); this would establish context better. In the rest of the para, a single statement which mentions all the towns/cities of Queensland it affected (and other areas outside) would be good since not everyone is familiar with these locations. Also one for showing its exact duration and another summarising all its damage (if possible). For the rest of the lead, could you consider adding about the wildfires being reduced (seems interesting but you will know about its importance)?
• 3B: In "Impact and aftermath", for it to be clearer and have better flow...these long paras need to be chopped, the similar content need to be arranged together and I think some statements (extra figures and a bit minor details) can be done away with or made into just passing mentions. Consider this rearrangement:
  • The following can be split into just an "Impact" section:
    • First para will detail only the increased rainfall and major effects in various places, the rest can be moved.
    • Second will be how it affected the rivers and the flooding (currently, the content from the 3rd and part of the 4th para).
    • Third: The para about how it affected people and industries. The deaths (surfer and the rest in the flooding), property damage and the rest.
    • Fourth: On the corals etc. (you don't need to go strictly by this order)
  • A second section for "Aftermath":
    • Two paras can be made from the current last para and also from the present 4th para—later response in Northampton, the last half of it.
  • Do consider trimming down (or consider making it a passing mention) the content about: a bit too local regions, extra statistics which make it more complicated to read through and other such similar details. I leave it to you to decide what should go and if you want, I could make some specific suggestions.
• Minor: why is it "an RV" and it needs linking or explanation, so does "gale force wind". Please re-word/clarify this, "There were reports of looting at the height of the floods", sounds a bit odd.
• 2B: Despite it been almost excessively having inlines, you missed a spot on this one, "Rainfall continued through the region through March 1991, resulting in the third largest flood in the region in over 100 years.".

I may make minor edits myself and tick off the remaining criteria later. I probably have not covered everything with my examples and you make additional changes like these, wherever I've overlooked. If you have any problems with any of them, please tell. Also let me know if you want more than a week to address these. Apologies for delaying and Merry Christmas! Ugog Nizdast (talk) 15:24, 24 December 2013 (UTC)