|Cyclone Kathy 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.|
|WikiProject Tropical cyclones / Storms||(Rated GA-class, Mid-importance)|
- This review is transcluded from Talk:Cyclone Kathy/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
...and here it is!
- It is reasonably well written.
- It is factually accurate and verifiable.
- It is broad in its coverage.
- a (major aspects): b (focused):
- 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.
- Reference #12 is dead.
- Under "Meteorological history", second paragraph "Through early on 22 March", sounds funny... if it's not outright wrong, then it's difficult and distracting to read.
- Under "Impact", it is written "Kathy wrought catastrophic damage in the region". In addition to not really getting much of that sense from reading the article, this and "Severe Tropical Cyclone Kathy was a powerful tropical cyclone that devastated the Sir Edward Pellew Group of Islands in March 1984." seem like somewhat unnecessary POV intrusions into the article. Per WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV, I think it might be better to describe what happened and let the reader decide for themselves whether the damage it cause was "catastrophic". If you can directly source that POV (say, by a prominent figure in the Bureau of Meteorology describing it as such), you might be able to introduce it in that context as well. "Dr. Cyclone, head of Cyclone Department, called it 'blah blah blah'".
- I think that the commas in this article are overused, even more so than in other hurricane articles I've seen, but this is just a suggestion and not something important for a GA Pass as it is something a little subjective.
And that's about it! To allow for these changes to be made I am placing the article on hold for a period of up to a week. I'm always open to discussion on any of the items, so if you think I'm wrong on something leave your thoughts here and we'll discuss. I'll be checking this page at least daily, unless something comes up, so you can be sure I'll notice any comments left here. Canadian Paul 04:52, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks for the review! I've responded to your comments. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 17:04, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Cyclone Kathy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
- Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.smh.com.au/entertainment/art-and-design/found-at-last-the-drovers-wife-20110205-1ahn2.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at
You may set the
|checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting
|needhelp= to your help request.
- If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
- If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
If you are unable to use these tools, you may set
|needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.