Jump to content

Talk:Cyclones Rona and Frank/GA1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA Review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing

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

Reviewer: ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 07:34, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Could you re-organize the lede so it's two evenly-spaced paragraphs?
  • Was the impact really that "devastating"? If not, find a better choice of wording in the opening sentence
Changed to "damaging" — Iune(talk) 19:06, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "causing 150 million dollars (1999 USD; 198 million 2011 USD)" - any reason why you say "dollars" as opposed to the traditional "$150 million"? It happens in the lede and in the body of the article
Fixed — Iune(talk) 19:06, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I suppose one of my bigger questions is how closely related the two cyclones were. Is there precedent to combining two articles for two differently named tropical cyclones that were only related via a common upper-level circulation? And IIRC, usually the upper-level circulation is some form of anticyclone for ventilation. How could the upper-level circulation be the same for both storms? More importantly, is there any more evidence that the two storms were actually related?
  • Could you give the intensity estimate for both landfalls in the lede?
  • "over Eastern Australia" - why is "Eastern" capitalized? You do it twice, and as far as I know, there is no official area called "Eastern Australia"
Fixed — Iune(talk) 19:06, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The dissipation of the trough caused the upper levels of the tropical low to become favorable for development and as a result, the system rapidly intensified on February 10" - whoa. First, you could make that a little simpler about the upper levels ("the trough's dissipation provided favorable upper-level conditions"). Next, how can the system rapidly intensify if it hadn't formed yet? And was it actually an example of rapid intensification? Or were you exaggerating a bit?
The BoM called it "rapid intensification" in their report. [1]
  • You should link to the AUS scale when you say "category one tropical cyclone"
  • "310 km (195 miles)" - why is km abbreviated, but miles is written out?
  • Watch out for split infinitives
    • "to rapidly accelerate"
    • "to definitely identify"
    • "to rapidly intensify"
  • "At 1200 UTC" - as it's been more than one sentence since the last date reference, you should re-clarify it
  • "Despite this, the circulation at 850 hPa was still tracked as it curved back to the east to the Coral Sea" - what does 850 hPa mean?
  • The whole process of Rona getting its sex change is a little confusing. It'd be helpful to more carefully walk the reader from dissipation to reformation, particularly in the four day period that is conveniently missing
  • "the storm was centered 430 miles (690 km) west-northwest of Nouméa, New Caledonia" - you had km (mi) earlier in the article. You need consistency!
Switched — Iune(talk) 19:06, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There's still inconsistency in the article. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 20:22, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "18 hours later" - don't start a sentence with a number
  • "Monitoring of the system ceased on February 27" - is there any way you could combine that short sentence with a previous one?
Merged sentences — Iune(talk) 19:06, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yea, but now it's pretty awkwardly written. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 20:22, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • When you mention the state of disaster, it's sort of awkward, since you refer to any damage for the first time. Try reorganizing for better flow.
  • "Significant crop and infrastructure damage was found" - who found it? Alternatively, just say "strong winds left significant crop and infrastructure damage..."
Changed — Iune(talk) 19:06, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why would a storm in 1934 have any relevance to a storm in 1999?
Removed — Iune(talk) 19:06, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it didn't have to be flat-out removed. You removed the bit that the cyclone downed some trees, which is certainly encyclopediac. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 20:22, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "in Queensland.[18] In Queensland" - could you find another way to word that to avoid such redundancy?
  • "in damages was reported to have been caused by Cyclone Rona" - who reported the damage? It's pretty weak writing seeing passive voice used so often
  • Is there any more Australian impact? You only mention what happened in Queensland, and aside from the 14 affected houses and the crop damage, there is little talk on what caused the $150 million in damage
  • "Despite passing only 27 kilometres (17 mi) west of Nouméa, the overall damage in New Caledonia was minimal" - you should probably clarify that's from Frank, not Rona
Added mention of Frank — Iune(talk) 19:06, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No, you didn't. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 20:22, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In addition, landslides were reported on some coastal roads and crop damage was found in the northeastern side of the island" - what do the landslides have to do with the crop damage? It's sort of a run-on. Try re-organizing the content in the paragraph for better flow
  • Also, in the New Caledonia section, you switch back to spelling out kilometres. Please fix and be consistent
Fixed — Iune(talk) 19:06, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's it for now. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 07:34, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've addressed some of the comments now, I can't do anymore today as I have to go to a competition today. I'll try to finish them tomorrow. — Iune(talk) 19:14, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, it's been too long without progress to the article, so I'm failing it. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 22:35, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Cyclones_Rona_and_Frank/GA1&oldid=1144166581"