I am nominating this for featured article because I feel that it meets FA requirements. I've thoroughly researched the storm and have found no additional information for it. All thoughts and comments are welcome. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 02:30, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
Note: This is a WikiCup nomination. To the nominator: if you do not intend to submit this article at the WikiCup, feel free to remove this notice. Ucucha 16:03, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
Comments - sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:58, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
Images are verifiably in the public domain. Jappalang (talk) 12:56, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
Support! --Article looks in good shape Jason Rees (talk) 23:25, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
Comment; the final paragraph of the met. history section seems extremely technical (even for me!) and confusion. Could it perhaps be condensed and made more accessible? –Juliancolton | Talk 01:47, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
I'm not sure how to make it any more simple than it currently is. This paragraph has never had an issue with other nominations before. If you have any suggestions for improving it, please share them. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 14:44, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
Support Looks good, comprehensive article.--Edward130603 (talk) 14:56, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
#I have a numerous amount of problems with the fact that the ONLY newspaper cited is the Australian Associated Press. Also, every single one is written as "Staff Writer", which is not really a correct author in theory. This relates to the next problem.
I've been under the impression that if there is no author listed, "staff writer" is used. Also, the reason why the AAP is the only newspaper cited is because that's the only one that had archived info on the storm. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 03:39, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
Removed Staff Writer from the author field Cyclonebiskit (talk) 14:28, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
#You have one paragraph of impact in a three paragraph section, partially because of the use on 1 paper. Try looking for more papers and citations where possible, as its kind of dull. Yes lack of damage is a problem, but sometimes you find unusual things looking around.
It's a three part section, with three paragraphs corresponding to the three things listed (Preps, Impact, Records). Cyclonebiskit (talk) 03:39, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
I've added one of the storm nearing landfall. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 19:35, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
#"The Australian Bureau of Meteorology uses 10-minute sustained winds, while the Joint Typhoon Warning Center uses one-minute sustained winds. The conversion factor between the two is 1.14. The Bureau of Meteorology's peak intensity for Gwenda was 225 km/h (140 mph) 10-minute sustained, or 260 km/h (160 mph) one-minute sustained. The JTWC's peak intensity for Gwenda was 240 km/h (150 mph) one-minute sustained, or 220 km/h (130 mph) 10-minute sustained." - get this out of here. This is better prepared for a separated records section.
This blurb has always been at the end of the Met. history, no need to change it if there's never been complaints before. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 03:39, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
There is really no better place to put this bit of info, it's meant to define what ten-minute and one-minute sustained winds are and the difference between them. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 19:37, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
#"The conversion factor between the two is 1.14." - Not specific enough 1.14x? 1.14 divided? what?
Neutral, but not comfortable with promotion - Yes now that we know we're talking a dud storm that did little damage, I will not oppose promotion, but I don't feel this should be promoted, being it did little to be actually interesting.Mitch32(Live from the Bob Barker Studioat CBS in Hollywood. Its Mitch!) 01:36, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
Why not mention the year straight up instead of doing so in the following sentence? Aaroncrick (talk) 11:54, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
Oppose. Just going through the lead was painful; the article hasn't been thoroughly prepared and checked against standards. The prose is far from 1a—basic errors are present, just in the lead. My one random source check came up red, indicating the need for a full source audit. Please withdraw and go through a peer review process (either at formal peer review or with peers in the storms WikiProject) to check sources, copyedit, and correct basic grammar and MoS issues. --Andy Walsh(talk) 06:52, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
Why "30 hour span" (no hyphen) and then "10-minute sustained winds" (hyphen)?
That same sentence is lacking parallel structure; we're told that the winds increased from x to y, but then that the pressure changed by x to y.
"At the same time, the Joint Typhoon Warning Center assessed" At the same time as what? The 30 hours you just mentioned?
"assessed the storm to have peaked" No...
"Shortly after reaching this intensity" What intensity? You've not mentioned the term yet, and the reader will not know how intensity is measured.
"the name Gwenda was retired at the end of the season." The source doesn't say that. It gives a list of names that doesn't include Gwenda, but that doesn't really tell us anything. You need a source stating that it was retired and, more important, why.
Ive changed the reference, they dont tell us why they retired the name though no WMO committee does.Jason Rees (talk) 17:33, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
I live in the US so that's the only style of writing I'm used to. I'm trying to gather Australian English over time but it's rather hard for someone not from the country. You're more than welcome to change it to Aus. English since that's the preferred style for this type of article. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 02:46, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
Has anyone pinged Laser to look in after the ce? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:17, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
Support following a series of copyedits. –Juliancolton | Talk 21:14, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
Support - Looks good prose and otherwise now. --mav (Urgent FACs/FARs) 23:29, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
Additional comments It's looking much better. A couple other things I encourage you to address:
The note about Gwenda still won't work. By phrasing it as "despite the minimal damage", you are making a claim that is not backed up by sources. All you have support for is " the name was retired from the circulating lists of tropical cyclone names for the Australian Region".
Reworded to avoid the unsourced claim Cyclonebiskit (talk) 14:32, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
Please check for overlinking—there are some terms or place names linked multiple times.
Oppose for now on comprehensive concerns. I've added a bit myself from Lexis, but I think that there's more information out there on this storm waiting to be found. I'd also like to see the article do a better job of situating the context of the storm. Contemporary news account make frequent reference to the unprecedented number of cyclone in the same area in a period of just weeks, and the fact that 3 Category 5 cyclones hit northwestern Australia in the same season. Cool three (talk) 17:04, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
If you know of any more sources, please do share them. The source finder you have is one I do not have access to, thus I didn't know of those articles existing. I'm a bit short on time at the moment but, when I have some free time, I'll work on encorporating the unusual number of intense storms in the region into the article. Also, thanks for the added information Cool three. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 19:18, 1 February 2010 (UTC)