Talk:Cyclone Erica

Cyclone Erica 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
October 22, 2012	Good article nominee	Listed
April 7, 2020	Good article reassessment	Kept

Current status: Good article

Weather: Tropical / Southern Hemisphere Low‑importance

	Weather portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Weather, which collaborates on weather and related subjects on Wikipedia. To participate, help improve this article or visit the project page for details. Articles Requested Project Resources Become a Member Project Talk Assessment A-Class Alerts WeatherWikipedia:WikiProject WeatherTemplate:WikiProject WeatherWeather articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	Tropical cyclones portal This article is supported by WikiProject Tropical cyclones (assessed as Low-importance).
	This article is supported by the Southern Hemisphere work group (assessed as Low-importance).

GA Review[edit]

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

Reviewer: 12george1 (talk · contribs) 20:36, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"slowly towards the west and then north early in its existence. However, increasing wind shear" - Actually, Erica initially moved east, because west would be toward the coast of Australia.
"Tiwi Islands on 13 Feburary. Two days" - February is misspelled/a typo
"end of the island at the Calendonian island commune" - Caledonian is misspelled
"Erica at 1800 UTC on 16&nsbp;March.[3]" - There is an error with the break tag.
"Nouméa on 17&nsbp;March to investigate" - Another break tag error
Alright, that is it for now. Send me a message on my talk page when you are finished. Regards,--12george1 (talk) 20:36, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Cyclone Erica. 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.met.gov.fj/documents/TC_Seasonal_Summary_02-031190690457.pdf
Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/5vy2pM0uM?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.australiansevereweather.com%2Fcyclones%2F2003%2Fsumm0303.htm to http://www.australiansevereweather.com/cyclones/2003/summ0303.htm
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.met.gov.fj/documents/TC_Seasonal_Summary_02-031190690457.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

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.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:56, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

GA Reassessment[edit]

This discussion is transcluded from Talk:Cyclone Erica/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the reassessment.

Closed due to inactivity from Jasper despite numerous attempts to get him to continue the reassessment. As the review is incomplete, the article is kept as a GA until someone else comes forth with additional comments. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 02:33, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Re-reviewing after I found numerous problems: GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Is it well written?
A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
Numerous grammar and styling problems:
- The second half of the first paragraph in the lead has numerous issues, such as "Originally, the storm moved slowly towards the east and then north early in its existence" (redundancies), "However, increasing wind shear caused the storm to be degenerated into a tropical low." (unnecessary passive voice that is awkward to read), "a Category 5 equivalent" (should be "a Category 5-equivalent cyclone"; "Category 5 equivalent" is an adjective, not a noun)
- "It subsequently moved northwards towards Mount Isa in Queensland, before it started to move eastwards and entered the Coral Sea near the Whitsunday Islands during 3 March." "before" is not the best conjunction here.
- "becoming equivalent to a tropical storm according to the JTWC by 1500 UTC on 5 March" "tropical storm" meaning?
- "Erica later attained maximum sustained winds of 105 km/h (65 mph 1-minute sustained)" – Not rounded correctly: 55 knots rounds to 100 km/h.
- "However the system began to move against the direction of the wind shear environment, and it lost much of its organization." Missing comma after "However", and not clear in the first half (a more academic way is to say its movement became out-of-phase with the wind shear, causing it to be more strongly affected by the shear")
- "Erica gradually intensified, attaining the equivalent to a Category 1 hurricane on the Saffir–Simpson Hurricane Scale (SSHS)" Missing period at the end of this sentence.
- "and peak winds of 260 km/h (150 mph 1-minute sustained)" This conversion is just wrong.
- "Later on 13 March, Erica began to parallel the western coast of New Caledonia while maintaining a strong intensity, before crossing the extreme southern end of the island at the Caledonian island commune of L'Île-des-Pins." "strong intensity" meaning?
- "After passing the island, Erica accelerated and began to rapidly weaken in the presence of strong wind shear. As a result, the cyclone began a phase of extratropical transition as it quickly paced to the southeast. On 15 March, Erica completed this transition. The remnant low continued to the east-southeast, ..." Weakening due to shear does not on its own cause extratropical transition, as implied by "As a result". "Remnant low" is also not the correct term.
B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
"On 15 March, Erica completed its transition into an extratropical cyclone and later fully dissipated the next day. " MOS:LEDE wants the lead to only contain things mentioned further down, but this is not one of them.
Is it verifiable with no original research?
A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:

B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:

C. It contains no original research:
Category 5 SSHWS or Category 4? 116 knots is also not a multiple of 5. These winds should be sourced (Neumann database or JTWC?).

D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
Is it neutral?
It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
Is it stable?
It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:

B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
I'm fairly sure we could use some damage pictures as well. There are two storm pictures (besides the infobox), so this seems a little unbalanced.
Overall:
Pass or Fail:
Substantial work is needed to bring it back to GA. It should be delisted if these issues are not fixed quickly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jasper Deng (talk • contribs)

@Jasper Deng: I went ahead and rewrote the meteorological history section. --TheAustinMan^{(Talk ⬩ Edits)} 01:59, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Jasper Deng: Any updates? It's been more than two months already... Nova Crystallis (Talk) 08:17, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Jasper Deng: Another month. This needs to be closed. AIRcorn (talk) 21:42, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Hurricanehink: Since Jasper isn't going to give any updates for this review, can you consider giving an updates on this? SMB9 9thx my edits 22:46, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@HurricaneTracker495: What about you? SMB9 9thx my edits 03:46, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Closing[edit]

When this reassessment will end? SMB9 9thx my edits 10:37, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.