Talk:Cyclone Kathy

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Good article 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.
March 13, 2011 Good article nominee Listed
WikiProject Tropical cyclones / Storms  (Rated GA-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Tropical cyclones, which collaborates on tropical cyclones and related subjects on Wikipedia. To participate, help improve this article or visit the project page for details.
 GA  This article has been rated as GA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the storm articles task force (marked as Mid-importance).
 

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:Cyclone Kathy/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Canadian Paul 17:14, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

I will be reviewing this article in the near future, hopefully tomorrow. Canadian Paul 17:14, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

...and here it is!

GA review (see here for criteria)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
  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.
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:
  6. 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):
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:
  1. Reference #12 is dead.
    It's not dead, the conversions are found on the right hand side of the page under the title "What's a dollar worth" Cyclonebiskit (talk) 17:04, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
  2. 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.
    Tweaked wording Cyclonebiskit (talk) 17:04, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
  3. 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'".
    Changed catastrophic to significant. The first sentence of the article comes from the BOM report; "Cyclone Kathy devastated the Sir Edward Pellew group and several small camps were demolished." [1] Cyclonebiskit (talk) 17:04, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
  4. 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.
    Probably just my style of writing :) Cyclonebiskit (talk) 17:04, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

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)
Everything looks good now, so I will be passing this as a Good Article. Congratulations and thank you for your hard work! Canadian Paul 06:01, 13 March 2011 (UTC)