Talk:1992 Queensland storms

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Good article 1992 Queensland storms 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
November 22, 2007 Good article nominee Listed
Did You Know A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on November 25, 2007.

Good Article Assessment[edit]

Here is the current revision of the page. Below is my assessment..

GA review (see here for criteria)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): b (MoS):
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    a (fair representation): b (all significant views):
  5. It is stable.
    (Even if was only started 2 days ago!)
  6. It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic.
    a (tagged and captioned): b lack of images (does not in itself exclude GA):
  7. Overall:
    a Pass/Fail:
  • All prose is readable, and doesn't use words that any editor/reader wouldn't understand.YesY
  • The article is focused and addresses a broad range of information without going into unnecessary detail. YesY
  • It is factually accurate and is backed up comprehensively with verifiable and independent, reliable sources.YesY
  • Is a very good article considering it's age.YesY
  • All it needs it some images. But that's nothing to fail an article like this for. N

Congratulations to Daniel for getting this upto scratch, and for making it comply with GA criteria. Any other user which wishes to help further this article would be welcomed. I'm glad I've had the opportunity to review this article. Regards, 15:59, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your review. I will look for or create images (maps, diagrams, possibly getting permission for some images) over the coming months. Cheers, Daniel 05:37, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

The changes to the lead[edit]

I noted that the structure of the lead was changed by Elcobbola "to comply with MoS". I disagree with this change, but want to bring it here for discussion. The change can be viewed here.

I have no objection with the changes to the second paragraph of the lead. However, the first now (in my opinion) reads extraordinarily clunkily and is far too general. I appreciate that often the exact name of the article is cited in bold in the first line, however this isn't always the case. The variation on the lead (as seen prior to the change) is especially prevalent in historical recounts (like this one). The relevant section is Wikipedia:Lead section#Bold title, especially the latter part of that section (the name of this article is a general placeholder rather than a specific name — Wikipedia:Naming conventions (events)).

My concerns with the changes are as follows:-

  • The current first sentence is really static (not particularily compelling, see also executive summary), and the phrase "refers to" verges on being a self-reference in this case (as this isn't a specific name for the event, but rather a manual of style name, so we have to define what it refers to).
  • The final sentence in the first paragraph now repeats the word "recorded", something I tried to avoid. Repetition of words in the lead is generally avoided because it needs to be the most compelling part of the article.

I invite discussion on this issue to hopefully reach a consensus on the most preferable version (either one of the two that have existed or a modified new version therein).

Cheers, Daniel 05:23, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

I think I found an easy solution to both my concerns while maintaining the bolded title which seems to be the point of concern: change one change two net change. If there's any concerns with the new wording I have just added, please feel free to raise it here and we can work on improving it. Cheers, Daniel 05:31, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
Re-read your edit summary for the revision of recorded: “ever witnessed works better, as there may have been stronger ones not … recorded””. That’s the very reason we want to say “recorded”. There’s no assertion with that phrasing that these were the strongest ever. Witnessed, however, cannot be proven. Australia has had indigenous inhabitants for 42,000 years. I seriously doubt that these are the strongest ever witnessed. At the very least, we don’t know for certain that “witnessed” is a true statement. We do, however, know that “recorded” is a true statement. Ɛƚƈơƅƅơƚɑ talk 14:56, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
I disagree to a certain extent. I think that as their is no proven literary or non-literary sources that can truly support the argument that other people may have seen a storm heavier or more damaging than this, it would be appropriate to put "witnessed" or "seen" back into the text. It may seem unnecessary, but as long as their is a reference there, I can't see a reason why not to. I've also made on change to the new lead. Regards, 15:52, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Dead link[edit]

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

    • In 1992 Queensland storms on 2011-05-25 06:01:08, Socket Error: 'A connection attempt failed because the connected party did not properly respond after a period of time, or established connection failed because connected host has failed to respond'
    • In 1992 Queensland storms on 2011-06-08 01:44:55, Socket Error: 'A connection attempt failed because the connected party did not properly respond after a period of time, or established connection failed because connected host has failed to respond'

--JeffGBot (talk) 01:45, 8 June 2011 (UTC)