Talk:Cyclone Kathy/GA1

GA Review
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):
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars, etc.:
 * 1) 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):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * 1) 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):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * 1) 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)
 * 1) 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)
 * 1) 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." Cyclonebiskit (talk) 17:04, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) 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)